Question · asked by 1 review
Dental cavity liner (e.g. calcium hydroxide, glass ionomer, resin-modified glass ionomer, or flowable composite) placed under the restoration vs No liner (resin-based composite bonded directly to the tooth): Postoperative hypersensitivity (POH), patient-reported (VAS score)
- Population
- Adults or children with a Class I or Class II resin-based composite restoration in a permanent posterior tooth
- Intervention
- Dental cavity liner (e.g. calcium hydroxide, glass ionomer, resin-modified glass ionomer, or flowable composite) placed under the restoration
- Comparison
- No liner (resin-based composite bonded directly to the tooth)
- Outcome
- Postoperative hypersensitivity (POH), patient-reported (VAS score)
Dental cavity liner (e.g. calcium hydroxide, glass ionomer,… led to lower postoperative hypersensitivity (POH), patient-reported (VAS score) compared with no liner (resin-based composite bonded directly to the tooth); GRADE not reported.
What each review found
Current versions onlyNo studies found 0 · 0%GRADE not reported 4 · 100%Very low 0 · 0%Low 0 · 0%Moderate 0 · 0%High 0 · 0%
| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Dental cavity liner (e.g. calcium hydroxide, glass ionomer, resin-modified glass ionomer, or flowable composite) placed under the restoration vs No liner (resin-based composite bonded directly to the tooth) Postoperative hypersensitivity (POH), patient-reported (VAS score) · Adults or children with a Class I or Class II resin-based composite restoration in a permanent posterior tooth · 1 week Dental cavity liner (e.g. calcium hydroxide, glass ionomer,… led to lower postoperative hypersensitivity (POH), patient-reported (VAS score) compared with no liner (resin-based composite bonded directly to the tooth); GRADE not reported. Dental cavity liners for Class I and Class II resin‐based composite restorations (2019) · Cochrane All outcomes | MD -0.33 [-0.43, -0.23] | 1 study | GRADE not reported |
Dental cavity liner (e.g. calcium hydroxide, glass ionomer, resin-modified glass ionomer, or flowable composite) placed under the restoration vs No liner (resin-based composite bonded directly to the tooth) Postoperative hypersensitivity (POH), patient-reported (VAS score) · Adults or children with a Class I or Class II resin-based composite restoration in a permanent posterior tooth · 1 month Dental cavity liner (e.g. calcium hydroxide, glass ionomer,… led to lower postoperative hypersensitivity (POH), patient-reported (VAS score) compared with no liner (resin-based composite bonded directly to the tooth); GRADE not reported. Dental cavity liners for Class I and Class II resin‐based composite restorations (2019) · Cochrane All outcomes | MD -0.20 [-0.31, -0.09] | 1 study | GRADE not reported |
Dental cavity liner (e.g. calcium hydroxide, glass ionomer, resin-modified glass ionomer, or flowable composite) placed under the restoration vs No liner (resin-based composite bonded directly to the tooth) Postoperative hypersensitivity (POH), patient-reported (VAS score) · Adults or children with a Class I or Class II resin-based composite restoration in a permanent posterior tooth · 1 month Dental cavity liner (e.g. calcium hydroxide, glass ionomer,… led to lower postoperative hypersensitivity (POH), patient-reported (VAS score) compared with no liner (resin-based composite bonded directly to the tooth); GRADE not reported. Dental cavity liners for Class I and Class II resin‐based composite restorations (2016) · Cochrane All outcomesearlier version CD010526.PUB2, superseded | MD -0.20 [-0.31, -0.09] | 1 study | GRADE not reported |
Dental cavity liner (e.g. calcium hydroxide, glass ionomer, resin-modified glass ionomer, or flowable composite) placed under the restoration vs No liner (resin-based composite bonded directly to the tooth) Postoperative hypersensitivity (POH), patient-reported (VAS score) · Adults or children with a Class I or Class II resin-based composite restoration in a permanent posterior tooth · 1 week Dental cavity liner (e.g. calcium hydroxide, glass ionomer,… led to lower postoperative hypersensitivity (POH), patient-reported (VAS score) compared with no liner (resin-based composite bonded directly to the tooth); GRADE not reported. Dental cavity liners for Class I and Class II resin‐based composite restorations (2016) · Cochrane All outcomesearlier version CD010526.PUB2, superseded | MD -0.33 [-0.43, -0.23] | 1 study | GRADE not reported |
Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.
The reviews
| Review | Searched up to | Included studies | AMSTAR 2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Dental cavity liners for Class I and Class II resin‐based composite restorations 2019 · Cochrane All outcomes | 2018-11 | Not listed | Not assessed |
Related questions
The same intervention and outcome, asked in another population or against another comparator.
- Dental cavity liner (e.g. calcium hydroxide, glass ionomer, resin-modified glass ionomer, or flowable composite) placed under the restoration vs No cavity liner or a different liner material · Patients with deep caries lesions in mature or immature permanent (posterior) 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.