Question · asked by 1 review

Mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) root-end filling vs Intermediate restorative material (IRM): Prevalence of pain - 1 day

Population
People requiring retreatment of periapical lesions (failed root canal therapy)
Intervention
Mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) root-end filling
Comparison
Intermediate restorative material (IRM)
Outcome
Prevalence of pain - 1 day

Mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) root-end filling showed no clear difference in prevalence of pain - 1 day compared with intermediate restorative material (IRM) (low certainty).

What each review found

Current versions only
FindingEffectStudiesGRADE certainty
Mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) root-end filling vs Intermediate restorative material (IRM)
Prevalence of pain - 1 day · People requiring retreatment of periapical lesions (failed root canal therapy) · 1 day
Mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) root-end filling showed no clear difference in prevalence of pain - 1 day compared with intermediate restorative material (IRM) (low certainty).
Endodontic procedures for retreatment of periapical lesions (2016) · Cochrane All outcomes
RR 1.01 [0.84, 1.22]1 study · 100 participantsLow

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

The reviews

ReviewSearched up toIncluded studiesAMSTAR 2
Endodontic procedures for retreatment of periapical lesions
2016 · Cochrane All outcomes
2016-02-10Not listedNot 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.