Single full-coverage metal-ceramic crown over composite core and post vs Direct adhesive composite restoration with post (conventional filling, no crown): Incidence or recurrence of caries (assessed clinically or by radiographs)
The review found no eligible studies for this question.
What each review found
Current versions only| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Single full-coverage metal-ceramic crown over composite core and post vs Direct adhesive composite restoration with post (conventional filling, no crown) Incidence or recurrence of caries (assessed clinically or by radiographs) · People with a permanent tooth that has undergone endodontic (root canal) treatment The review found no eligible studies for this question. Single crowns versus conventional fillings for the restoration of root‐filled teeth (2015) · Cochrane All outcomes | No data were reported nor measured by the study. The abstract confirms no evidence was available for any secondary outcome. | Not reported | No studies found |
Single full-coverage metal-ceramic crown over composite core and post vs Direct adhesive composite restoration with post (conventional filling, no crown) Incidence or recurrence of caries (assessed clinically or by radiographs) · People with a permanent tooth that has undergone endodontic (root canal) treatment The review found no eligible studies for this question. Single crowns versus conventional fillings for the restoration of root‐filled teeth (2012) · Cochrane All outcomesearlier version CD009109.PUB2, superseded | No data were reported. | Not reported | No studies found |
Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.
The reviews
| Review | Searched up to | Included studies | AMSTAR 2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Single crowns versus conventional fillings for the restoration of root‐filled teeth 2015 · Cochrane All outcomes | 2015-03 | 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.