Question · asked by 1 review
Mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) root-end filling vs Intermediate restorative material (IRM): Healing rate
- Population
- People requiring retreatment of periapical lesions (failed root canal therapy)
- Intervention
- Mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) root-end filling
- Comparison
- Intermediate restorative material (IRM)
- Outcome
- Healing rate
Mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) root-end filling showed no clear difference in healing - 2 years compared with intermediate restorative material (IRM); GRADE not reported.
What each review found
Include earlier review versions| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) root-end filling vs Intermediate restorative material (IRM) Healing - 2 years · People requiring retreatment of periapical lesions (failed root canal therapy) · 2 years Mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) root-end filling showed no clear difference in healing - 2 years compared with intermediate restorative material (IRM); GRADE not reported. Endodontic procedures for retreatment of periapical lesions (2016) · Cochrane All outcomes | RR 1.05 [0.92, 1.20] | 1 study · 108 participants | GRADE not reported |
Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.
The reviews
| Review | Searched up to | Included studies | AMSTAR 2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Endodontic procedures for retreatment of periapical lesions 2016 · Cochrane All outcomes | 2016-02-10 | Not listed | Not assessed |
How reviews are matched to this question
Reviews word the same question differently. Four decision models (TypeSafe's Jev, Liquid AI's d1-ultra, SubQ Snap and Baseten's Elephant) judged each wording of the population, intervention, comparator and outcome against the others; two wordings count as the same when at least three of them agree and none clearly disagrees, and findings count as this question only when all four elements match. Timing, setting and subgroup never split a question: they are shown on each finding.