Question · asked by 1 review
Polyether impression material vs Polyvinyl siloxane impression material: Pulp necrosis
- Population
- Vital teeth
- Intervention
- Polyether impression material
- Comparison
- Polyvinyl siloxane impression material
- Outcome
- Pulp necrosis
The pooled incidence with polyether impression material was 4.02%.
What each review found
Include earlier review versionsNo studies found 0 · 0%GRADE not reported 2 · 100%Very low 0 · 0%Low 0 · 0%Moderate 0 · 0%High 0 · 0%
| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Polyether impression material vs Polyvinyl siloxane impression material Pulp necrosis incidence · Vital teeth · Polyether The pooled incidence with polyether impression material was 4.02%. Incidence and influential factors in pulp necrosis and periapical pathosis following indirect restorations:… (2023) All outcomes | Proportion 4.02 [2.47, 5.92] | 2985 participants | GRADE not reported |
Polyether impression material vs Polyvinyl siloxane impression material Pulp necrosis incidence · Vital teeth · Polyvinyl siloxane The pooled incidence with polyvinyl siloxane impression material was 3.17%. Incidence and influential factors in pulp necrosis and periapical pathosis following indirect restorations:… (2023) All outcomes | Proportion 3.17 [1.55, 5.34] | 636 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.