Question · asked by 1 review

Chemical cured composite vs Glass ionomer cement (GIC): Decalcification

Population
Patients with fixed orthodontic appliances attached to their teeth
Intervention
Chemical cured composite
Comparison
Glass ionomer cement (GIC)
Outcome
Decalcification

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

What each review found

Current versions only
No studies found 2 · 100%GRADE not reported 0 · 0%Very low 0 · 0%Low 0 · 0%Moderate 0 · 0%High 0 · 0%
FindingEffectStudiesGRADE certainty
Chemical cured composite vs Conventional (chemical cured) glass ionomer cement
Decalcification · Patients with fixed orthodontic appliances attached to their teeth · To end of appliance treatment
The review found no eligible studies for this question.
Adhesives for fixed orthodontic brackets (2018) · Cochrane All outcomes
It was surprising that decalcification rates were not reported as a secondary outcome, as clinically it is suggested that GIC is protective against decalcification; the…0 studiesNo studies found
Chemical cured composite vs Conventional (chemical cured) glass ionomer cement
Decalcification · Patients with fixed orthodontic appliances attached to their teeth · To end of appliance treatment
The review found no eligible studies for this question.
Adhesives for fixed orthodontic brackets (2003) · Cochrane All outcomesearlier version CD002282, superseded
It was surprising that decalcification rates were not reported as a secondary outcome, as clinically it is suggested that GIC is protective against decalcification; the…0 studiesNo studies found

Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.

The reviews

ReviewSearched up toIncluded studiesAMSTAR 2
Adhesives for fixed orthodontic brackets
2018 · Cochrane All outcomes
2017-09Not 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.