Question · asked by 1 review

Adhesively bonded amalgam restorations in conventional preparations utilising deliberate retention (all bonding agents) vs Amalgam restoration: Post‐insertion sensitivity or pain assessed by a validated pain scale

What each review found

Include earlier review versions
FindingEffectStudiesGRADE certainty
Adhesively bonded amalgam restorations in conventional preparations utilising deliberate retention (all bonding agents) vs Traditional non‐bonded amalgam restorations
Post‐insertion sensitivity or pain assessed by a validated pain scale · Adults and adolescents with permanent posterior molar and premolar teeth suitable for Class I and II, but excluding… · Baseline and 24 months
Adhesively bonded versus non‐bonded amalgam restorations for dental caries (2016) · Cochrane All outcomes
Post‐insertion sensitivity or pain assessed by a validated pain scale - not measured | See comment | See comment | Not estimable | - | See comment | No study addressed this outcome1 study · 31 participantsGRADE not reported

Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.

The reviews

ReviewSearched up toIncluded studiesAMSTAR 2
Adhesively bonded versus non‐bonded amalgam restorations for dental caries
2016 · Cochrane All outcomes
2016-01list not extracted yetNot 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.