Same question across reviews · CL0250
intervention :: Restorative materials -> Diagnostic accuracy
ProposalThis cluster groups questions by review type, intervention category and outcome domain. It is a proposal pending human validation, so questions in it may differ in population, comparator or timing.
Reviews
2
Questions
2
current versions
GRADE rated
1
Review overlap (CCA)
NR
over all included studies of these reviews, not this question only
| Question | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Direct composite resin restoration vs Amalgam restoration Harms (toxicity and postoperative sensitivity) · People with permanent or adult posterior teeth requiring restoration (parallel-group trials involved children aged 6… · Follow-up: 2 weeks to 7 years Direct composite resin fillings versus amalgam fillings for permanent posterior teeth (2021) · Cochrane | SoF (Harms, follow-up 2 weeks to 7 years): See comments; 3 studies; certainty very low (⊕⊝⊝⊝). Comments: data were reported for physical development, neurological and psychological effects, neurobehavioural and… | 3 studies | Very low |
Adhesively bonded amalgam restorations in conventional preparations utilising deliberate retention (all bonding agents) vs Traditional non‐bonded amalgam restorations Post‐insertion sensitivity or pain assessed by a validated pain scale · Adults and adolescents with permanent posterior molar and premolar teeth suitable for Class I and II, but excluding… · Baseline and 24 months Adhesively bonded versus non‐bonded amalgam restorations for dental caries (2016) · Cochrane | Post‐insertion sensitivity or pain assessed by a validated pain scale - not measured | See comment | See comment | Not estimable | - | See comment | No study addressed this outcome | 1 study · 31 participants | Ungraded |