Question · asked by 1 review
ART using resin-modified glass ionomer cement (RM-GIC) vs Conventional treatment using RM-GIC: Secondary caries
What each review found
Current versions only| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
ART using resin-modified glass ionomer cement (RM-GIC) vs Conventional treatment using RM-GIC Secondary caries · Older adults with root caries in permanent (mature) teeth (mean age 75 years) · 6 months Atraumatic restorative treatment versus conventional restorative treatment for managing dental caries (2017) · Cochrane All outcomes | One study reported data on secondary caries for this comparison (Cruz 2016). The odds of secondary caries at six months were greater with ART than with conventional treatment. | 1 study | GRADE not reported |
Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.
The reviews
| Review | Searched up to | Included studies | AMSTAR 2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Atraumatic restorative treatment versus conventional restorative treatment for managing dental caries 2017 · Cochrane All outcomes | 2017-02 | list not extracted yet | Not assessed |
Studies behind the findings
None of these reviews ties its included studies to this outcome in the data here. Cochrane reviews and reviews with headline outcomes only do not list their studies yet.
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.