Preformed crown (any material; conventional technique or Hall Technique) vs Filling (any material; with or without complete carious tissue excavation; with or without pulp treatment): Adverse events: gingival bleeding
- Population
- Children with decayed primary molar teeth
- Intervention
- Preformed crown (any material; conventional technique or Hall Technique)
- Comparison
- Filling (any material; with or without complete carious tissue excavation; with or without pulp treatment)
- Outcome
- Adverse events: gingival bleeding
Preformed crown (any material; conventional technique or Hall… showed no clear difference in adverse events: gingival bleeding compared with filling (any material; with or without complete carious tissue…; GRADE not reported.
What each review found
Current versions only| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Preformed crown (any material; conventional technique or Hall Technique) vs Filling (any material; with or without complete carious tissue excavation; with or without pulp treatment) Adverse events: gingival bleeding · Children with decayed primary molar teeth · Short term (up to 12 months) Preformed crown (any material; conventional technique or Hall… showed no clear difference in adverse events: gingival bleeding compared with filling (any material; with or without complete carious tissue…; GRADE not reported. Preformed crowns for decayed primary molar teeth (2015) · Cochrane All outcomes | RR 1.69 [0.61, 4.66] | 2 studies · 226 participants | GRADE not reported |
Preformed crown (any material; conventional technique or Hall Technique) vs Filling (any material; with or without complete carious tissue excavation; with or without pulp treatment) Adverse events: gingival bleeding · Children with decayed primary molar teeth · Long term (12 months) Preformed crown (any material; conventional technique or Hall… showed no clear difference in adverse events: gingival bleeding compared with filling (any material; with or without complete carious tissue… (low certainty). Preformed crowns for decayed primary molar teeth (2015) · Cochrane All outcomes | RR 1.74 [0.99, 3.06] | 2 studies · 195 participants | 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.