Question · asked by 1 review
Enamel matrix derivative (EMD; Emdogain) vs Formocresol (FC): Clinical failure
- Population
- Children with extensive decay involving the dental pulp in primary teeth
- Intervention
- Enamel matrix derivative (EMD; Emdogain)
- Comparison
- Formocresol (FC)
- Outcome
- Clinical failure
It is very uncertain whether enamel matrix derivative (EMD) changes clinical failure compared with formocresol (FC) (very low certainty).
What each review found
Current versions onlyNo studies found 0 · 0%GRADE not reported 1 · 50%Very low 1 · 50%Low 0 · 0%Moderate 0 · 0%High 0 · 0%
| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Enamel matrix derivative (EMD) vs Formocresol (FC) Clinical failure · Children with extensive decay involving the dental pulp in primary teeth · 6 months It is very uncertain whether enamel matrix derivative (EMD) changes clinical failure compared with formocresol (FC) (very low certainty). Pulp treatment for extensive decay in primary teeth (2018) · Cochrane All outcomes | RR 0.80 [0.23, 2.83] | 2 studies · 100 participants | Very low |
Enamel matrix derivative (EMD) vs Formocresol (FC) Clinical failure · Children with extensive decay involving the dental pulp in primary teeth · 6 months Enamel matrix derivative (EMD) showed no clear difference in clinical failure compared with formocresol (FC); GRADE not reported. Pulp treatment for extensive decay in primary teeth (2014) · Cochrane All outcomesearlier version CD003220.PUB2, superseded | RR 0.20 [0.03, 1.51] | 1 study · 30 participants | GRADE not reported |
Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.
The reviews
| Review | Searched up to | Included studies | AMSTAR 2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Pulp treatment for extensive decay in primary teeth 2018 · Cochrane All outcomes | 2017-08 | Not listed | Not assessed |
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.