Question · asked by 1 review

Calcium hydroxide (CH) vs Formocresol (FC): Radiological failure

Population
Children with extensive decay involving the dental pulp in primary teeth
Intervention
Calcium hydroxide (CH)
Comparison
Formocresol (FC)
Outcome
Radiological failure

Calcium hydroxide (CH) probably leads to higher radiological failure compared with formocresol (FC) (moderate certainty).

What each review found

Current versions only
No studies found 0 · 0%GRADE not reported 2 · 50%Very low 0 · 0%Low 1 · 25%Moderate 1 · 25%High 0 · 0%
FindingEffectStudiesGRADE certainty
Calcium hydroxide (CH) vs Formocresol (FC)
Radiological failure · Children with extensive decay involving the dental pulp in primary teeth · 12 months
Calcium hydroxide (CH) probably leads to higher radiological failure compared with formocresol (FC) (moderate certainty).
Pulp treatment for extensive decay in primary teeth (2018) · Cochrane All outcomes
RR 1.86 [1.42, 2.44]6 studies · 332 participantsModerate
Calcium hydroxide (CH) vs Formocresol (FC)
Radiological failure · Children with extensive decay involving the dental pulp in primary teeth · 24 months
Calcium hydroxide (CH) may leads to higher radiological failure compared with formocresol (FC) (low certainty).
Pulp treatment for extensive decay in primary teeth (2018) · Cochrane All outcomes
RR 3.11 [1.61, 6.02]1 study · 120 participantsLow
Calcium hydroxide (CH) vs Formocresol (FC)
Radiological failure · Children with extensive decay involving the dental pulp in primary teeth · 24 months
Calcium hydroxide (CH) led to higher radiological failure compared with formocresol (FC); GRADE not reported.
Pulp treatment for extensive decay in primary teeth (2014) · Cochrane All outcomesearlier version CD003220.PUB2, superseded
RR 3.11 [1.61, 6.02]1 study · 120 participantsGRADE not reported
Calcium hydroxide (CH) vs Formocresol (FC)
Radiological failure · Children with extensive decay involving the dental pulp in primary teeth · 12 months
Calcium hydroxide (CH) led to higher radiological failure compared with formocresol (FC); GRADE not reported.
Pulp treatment for extensive decay in primary teeth (2014) · Cochrane All outcomesearlier version CD003220.PUB2, superseded
RR 1.72 [1.32, 2.25]Not reportedGRADE not reported

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

The reviews

ReviewSearched up toIncluded studiesAMSTAR 2
Pulp treatment for extensive decay in primary teeth
2018 · Cochrane All outcomes
2017-08Not listedNot assessed

The same intervention and outcome, asked in another population or against another comparator.

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.