Question · asked by 1 review
Preformed metal crown (stainless steel), conventional technique vs Aesthetic crown (stainless steel with composite/white veneer), conventional technique: Adverse events: gingival bleeding
- Population
- Children with decayed primary molar teeth
- Intervention
- Preformed metal crown (stainless steel), conventional technique
- Comparison
- Aesthetic crown (stainless steel with composite/white veneer), conventional technique
- Outcome
- Adverse events: gingival bleeding
What each review found
Include earlier review versions| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Preformed metal crown (stainless steel), conventional technique vs Aesthetic crown (stainless steel with composite/white veneer), conventional technique Adverse events: gingival bleeding · Children with decayed primary molar teeth · Six months and four years Preformed crowns for decayed primary molar teeth (2015) · Cochrane All outcomes | At six months, none (0/11) of the PMC sites had gingival bleeding, but all (11/11) veneer sites had bleeding, 10 of which bled on probing; statistically significant (McNemar's test, P < 0.001). At four years, one case… | 1 study · 11 participants | Very low |
Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.
The reviews
| Review | Searched up to | Included studies | AMSTAR 2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Preformed crowns for decayed primary molar teeth 2015 · Cochrane All outcomes | 2015-01 | 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.