Question · asked by 1 review
ProRoot MTA vs RetroMTA: Clinical failure
- Population
- Children with extensive decay involving the dental pulp in primary teeth
- Intervention
- ProRoot MTA
- Comparison
- RetroMTA
- Outcome
- Clinical failure
What each review found
Include earlier review versions| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
ProRoot MTA vs RetroMTA Clinical failure · Children with extensive decay involving the dental pulp in primary teeth · 6 and 12 months Pulp treatment for extensive decay in primary teeth (2018) · Cochrane All outcomes | No clinical failure in any participant (Kang 2015); not estimable | 1 study · 96 participants | GRADE not reported |
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 |
Related questions
The same intervention and outcome, asked in another population or against another comparator.
- ProRoot MTA vs OrthoMTA · Children with extensive decay involving the dental pulp in primary teeth · 1 review
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.