Question · asked by 1 review
Ceramic inlays (all types) vs Gold inlay: Failure rate (longevity) at 5 years
- Population
- Adults who require restorative treatment in posterior teeth
- Intervention
- Ceramic inlays (all types)
- Comparison
- Gold inlay
- Outcome
- Failure rate (longevity) at 5 years
Ceramic inlays (all types) showed no clear difference in failure rate (longevity) at 5 years compared with gold inlay; GRADE not reported.
What each review found
Current versions only| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Ceramic inlays (all types) vs Gold inlay Failure rate (longevity) at 5 years · Adults who require restorative treatment in posterior teeth · 5 years Ceramic inlays (all types) showed no clear difference in failure rate (longevity) at 5 years compared with gold inlay; GRADE not reported. Ceramic inlays for restoring posterior teeth (2003) · Cochrane All outcomes | OR 1.12 [0.08, 15.0] | 1 study · 20 participants | GRADE not reported |
Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.
The reviews
| Review | Searched up to | Included studies | AMSTAR 2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ceramic inlays for restoring posterior teeth 2003 · Cochrane All outcomes | 2001 | 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.