Mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) root-end filling vs Gutta-percha smoothing (orthograde GP root filling): Healing - 1 year
- Population
- People requiring retreatment of periapical lesions (failed root canal therapy)
- Intervention
- Mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) root-end filling
- Comparison
- Gutta-percha smoothing (orthograde GP root filling)
- Outcome
- Healing - 1 year
Mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) root-end filling may leads to higher healing - 1 year compared with gutta-percha smoothing (orthograde GP root filling) (low certainty).
What each review found
Current versions only| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) root-end filling vs Gutta-percha smoothing (orthograde GP root filling) Healing - 1 year · People requiring retreatment of periapical lesions (failed root canal therapy) · 1 year Mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) root-end filling may leads to higher healing - 1 year compared with gutta-percha smoothing (orthograde GP root filling) (low certainty). Endodontic procedures for retreatment of periapical lesions (2016) · Cochrane All outcomes | RR 1.60 [1.14, 2.24] | 1 study · 46 participants | Low |
Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.
The reviews
| Review | Searched up to | Included studies | AMSTAR 2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Endodontic procedures for retreatment of periapical lesions 2016 · Cochrane All outcomes | 2016-02-10 | Not listed | Not assessed |
Related questions
The same intervention and outcome, asked in another population or against another comparator.
- Mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) root-end filling vs SuperEBA · People requiring retreatment of periapical lesions (failed root canal therapy) · 1 review
- Mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) root-end filling vs Intermediate restorative material (IRM) · People requiring retreatment of periapical lesions (failed root canal therapy) · 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.