Question · asked by 1 review

Aesthetic (resin-veneered) crowns vs Conventional metal (stainless steel) crowns: Occlusion

Population
Children aged 12 years or younger with tooth decay involving at least one tooth in the primary dentition, symptomatic or symptom free
Intervention
Aesthetic (resin-veneered) crowns
Comparison
Conventional metal (stainless steel) crowns
Outcome
Occlusion

Aesthetic (resin-veneered) crowns led to lower occlusion at 6 months compared with conventional metal (stainless steel) crowns; GRADE not reported.

What each review found

Include earlier review versions
FindingEffectStudiesGRADE certainty
Aesthetic (resin-veneered) crowns vs Conventional metal (stainless steel) crowns
Occlusion at 6 months · Children aged 12 years or younger with tooth decay involving at least one tooth in the primary dentition, symptomatic… · 6 months
Aesthetic (resin-veneered) crowns led to lower occlusion at 6 months compared with conventional metal (stainless steel) crowns; GRADE not reported.
Dental fillings for the treatment of caries in the primary dentition (2009) · Cochrane All outcomes
Occlusion at 6 months: odds ratio not estimable - no events recorded at the 6-month evaluation.1 study · 22 participantsGRADE not reported

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

The reviews

ReviewSearched up toIncluded studiesAMSTAR 2
Dental fillings for the treatment of caries in the primary dentition
2009 · Cochrane All outcomes
2009-01Not listedNot 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.