Glass ionomer cement root-end filling vs Amalgam restoration: Healing rate
Glass ionomer cement root-end filling showed no clear difference in healing - 5 years compared with amalgam; GRADE not reported.
What each review found
Current versions only| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Glass ionomer cement root-end filling vs Amalgam Healing - 5 years · People requiring retreatment of periapical lesions (failed root canal therapy) · 5 years Glass ionomer cement root-end filling showed no clear difference in healing - 5 years compared with amalgam; GRADE not reported. Endodontic procedures for retreatment of periapical lesions (2016) · Cochrane All outcomes | RR 1.00 [0.84, 1.20] | 1 study · 67 participants | GRADE not reported |
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 | list not extracted yet | Not 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.