Question · asked by 1 review
Ceramic restoration material vs Porcelain-fused-to-metal restoration material: Pulp necrosis
- Population
- Vital teeth
- Intervention
- Ceramic restoration material
- Comparison
- Porcelain-fused-to-metal restoration material
- Outcome
- Pulp necrosis
The pooled incidence with ceramic restorations was 5.59%.
What each review found
Current versions only| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Ceramic restoration material vs Porcelain-fused-to-metal restoration material Pulp necrosis incidence · Vital teeth · Ceramic The pooled incidence with ceramic restorations was 5.59%. Incidence and influential factors in pulp necrosis and periapical pathosis following indirect restorations:… (2023) All outcomes | Proportion 5.59 [2.89, 9.12] | 460 participants | GRADE not reported |
Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.
The reviews
| Review | Searched up to | Included studies | AMSTAR 2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Incidence and influential factors in pulp necrosis and periapical pathosis following indirect restorations: a systematic review and… 2023 All outcomes | December 2022 (initial search October 2021, updated December 2022) | 68 | Not applicable |
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.