Question · asked by 1 review
38% SDF (indirect pulp capping under resin composite) vs Resin-modified glass ionomer cement (RMGIC): Secondary caries prevention in young permanent first molars
- Population
- Children with deep occlusal caries in young permanent first molars (indirect pulp capping)
- Intervention
- 38% SDF (indirect pulp capping under resin composite)
- Comparison
- Resin-modified glass ionomer cement (RMGIC)
- Outcome
- Secondary caries prevention in young permanent first molars
SDF and RMGIC did not differ significantly for secondary caries prevention in young permanent molars (no events; p>0.05; ungraded).
What each review found
Current versions only| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
38% SDF (indirect pulp capping under resin composite) vs Resin-modified GIC (RMGIC) Secondary caries prevention in young permanent first molars · Children with deep occlusal caries in young permanent first molars (indirect pulp capping) · 12 months, University dental clinic (children), Baraka 2022 (indirect pulp capping, Egypt) SDF and RMGIC did not differ significantly for secondary caries prevention in young permanent molars (no events; p>0.05; ungraded). A systematic review on the effect of silver diamine fluoride for management of dental caries in permanent… (2023) All outcomes | Baraka et al. (2022): no significant difference in secondary caries prevention between 38% SDF and RMGIC (no secondary caries in either group through 12 months; p=0.63 at 12 months; overall p=0.26). | 1 study · 49 participants | GRADE not reported |
Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.
The reviews
| Review | Searched up to | Included studies | AMSTAR 2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| A systematic review on the effect of silver diamine fluoride for management of dental caries in permanent teeth. 2023 All outcomes | December 2022 | 13 | Low / Critically Low |
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.