Question · asked by 1 review
Calcium-enriched mixture (CEM) cement vs Mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA): Clinical failure
- Population
- Children with extensive decay involving the dental pulp in primary teeth
- Intervention
- Calcium-enriched mixture (CEM) cement
- Comparison
- Mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA)
- Outcome
- Clinical failure
It is very uncertain whether calcium-enriched mixture (CEM) cement changes clinical failure compared with mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) (very low certainty).
What each review found
Include earlier review versionsNo studies found 0 · 0%GRADE not reported 1 · 50%Very low 1 · 50%Low 0 · 0%Moderate 0 · 0%High 0 · 0%
| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Calcium-enriched mixture (CEM) cement vs Mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) Clinical failure · Children with extensive decay involving the dental pulp in primary teeth · 6, 12 and 18 months Pulp treatment for extensive decay in primary teeth (2018) · Cochrane All outcomes | No clinical failure in any participant (Malekafzali 2011); not estimable | 1 study · 80 participants | GRADE not reported |
Calcium-enriched mixture (CEM) cement vs Mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) Clinical failure · Children with extensive decay involving the dental pulp in primary teeth · 6 months It is very uncertain whether calcium-enriched mixture (CEM) cement changes clinical failure compared with mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) (very low certainty). Pulp treatment for extensive decay in primary teeth (2018) · Cochrane All outcomes | RR 3.00 [0.13, 69.70] | 1 study · 42 participants | Very low |
Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.
The reviews
| Review | Searched up to | Included studies | AMSTAR 2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Pulp treatment for extensive decay in primary teeth 2018 · Cochrane All outcomes | 2017-08 | 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.