Question · asked by 1 review

Metapex (calcium hydroxide/iodoform) vs Calcium hydroxide (CH): Clinical failure

Population
Children with extensive decay involving the dental pulp in primary teeth
Intervention
Metapex (calcium hydroxide/iodoform)
Comparison
Calcium hydroxide (CH)
Outcome
Clinical failure

Calcium hydroxide/iodoform (CH/iodoform) showed no clear difference in clinical failure compared with calcium hydroxide (CH); GRADE not reported.

What each review found

Include earlier review versions
FindingEffectStudiesGRADE certainty
Calcium hydroxide/iodoform (CH/iodoform) vs Calcium hydroxide (CH)
Clinical failure · Children with extensive decay involving the dental pulp in primary teeth · 12 months
Calcium hydroxide/iodoform (CH/iodoform) showed no clear difference in clinical failure compared with calcium hydroxide (CH); GRADE not reported.
Pulp treatment for extensive decay in primary teeth (2018) · Cochrane All outcomes
RR 1.13 [0.82, 1.54]1 study · 65 participantsGRADE 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.