Question · asked by 1 review
Glass ionomer cement root-end filling vs Amalgam restoration: Healing - 1 year
- Population
- People requiring retreatment of periapical lesions (failed root canal therapy)
- Intervention
- Glass ionomer cement root-end filling
- Comparison
- Amalgam restoration
- Outcome
- Healing - 1 year
It is very uncertain whether glass ionomer cement root-end filling changes healing - 1 year compared with amalgam (very low certainty).
What each review found
Current versions only| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Glass ionomer cement root-end filling vs Amalgam Healing - 1 year · People requiring retreatment of periapical lesions (failed root canal therapy) · 1 year It is very uncertain whether glass ionomer cement root-end filling changes healing - 1 year compared with amalgam (very low certainty). Endodontic procedures for retreatment of periapical lesions (2016) · Cochrane All outcomes | RR 0.98 [0.86, 1.12] | 1 study · 105 participants | Very low |
Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.
The reviews
| Review | Searched up to | Included studies | AMSTAR 2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Endodontic procedures for retreatment of periapical lesions 2016 · Cochrane All outcomes | 2016-02-10 | 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.