Question · asked by 1 review
No additional acid etching (self-etch adhesive alone) after Er,Cr:YSGG preparation vs Prior acid etching before self-etch adhesive after Er,Cr:YSGG preparation: Incidence of microleakage
- Population
- Er,Cr:YSGG laser-prepared cavities restored with self-etch adhesive systems (in vitro)
- Intervention
- No additional acid etching (self-etch adhesive alone) after Er,Cr:YSGG preparation
- Comparison
- Prior acid etching before self-etch adhesive after Er,Cr:YSGG preparation
- Outcome
- Incidence of microleakage
At the dentin margin, prior acid etching with self-etch adhesives significantly reduced microleakage (RR 2.44, 95% CI 1.38-4.34; ungraded).
What each review found
Current versions onlyNo studies found 0 · 0%GRADE not reported 3 · 100%Very low 0 · 0%Low 0 · 0%Moderate 0 · 0%High 0 · 0%
| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
No additional acid etching (self-etch adhesive alone) after Er,Cr:YSGG preparation vs Prior acid etching before self-etch adhesive after Er,Cr:YSGG preparation Incidence of microleakage · Er,Cr:YSGG laser-prepared cavities restored with self-etch adhesive systems (in vitro) · In vitro (extracted human teeth), Dentin margin At the dentin margin, prior acid etching with self-etch adhesives significantly reduced microleakage (RR 2.44, 95% CI 1.38-4.34; ungraded). Does Er,Cr:YSGG reduce the microleakage of restorations when used for cavity preparation? A systematic… (2020) All outcomes | RR 2.44 [1.38, 4.34] | 2 studies | GRADE not reported |
No additional acid etching (self-etch adhesive alone) after Er,Cr:YSGG preparation vs Prior acid etching before self-etch adhesive after Er,Cr:YSGG preparation Incidence of microleakage · Er,Cr:YSGG laser-prepared cavities restored with self-etch adhesive systems (in vitro) · In vitro (extracted human teeth), Enamel margin At the enamel margin, prior acid etching with self-etch adhesives significantly reduced microleakage (RR 3.0, 95% CI 1.54-5.83; ungraded). Does Er,Cr:YSGG reduce the microleakage of restorations when used for cavity preparation? A systematic… (2020) All outcomes | RR 3.00 [1.54, 5.83] | 2 studies | GRADE not reported |
No additional acid etching (self-etch adhesive alone) after Er,Cr:YSGG preparation vs Prior acid etching before self-etch adhesive after Er,Cr:YSGG preparation Incidence of microleakage · Er,Cr:YSGG laser-prepared cavities restored with self-etch adhesive systems (in vitro) · In vitro (extracted human teeth) Prior acid etching with self-etch adhesives significantly reduced microleakage after Er,Cr:YSGG preparation (RR 2.69 for no-etch vs etch, 95% CI 1.74-4.15; ungraded). Does Er,Cr:YSGG reduce the microleakage of restorations when used for cavity preparation? A systematic… (2020) All outcomes | RR 2.69 [1.74, 4.15] | 2 studies | GRADE not reported |
Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.
The reviews
| Review | Searched up to | Included studies | AMSTAR 2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does Er,Cr:YSGG reduce the microleakage of restorations when used for cavity preparation? A systematic review and meta-analysis. 2020 All outcomes | July 2019 | 23 | Critically Low / Critically Low |
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.