Question · asked by 1 review
Tempophore vs Mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA): Radiological failure
- Population
- Children with extensive decay involving the dental pulp in primary teeth
- Intervention
- Tempophore
- Comparison
- Mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA)
- Outcome
- Radiological failure
Tempophore showed no clear difference in radiological failure compared with mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA); GRADE not reported.
What each review found
Include earlier review versions| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Tempophore vs Mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) Radiological failure · Children with extensive decay involving the dental pulp in primary teeth · 12 months Tempophore showed no clear difference in radiological failure compared with mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA); GRADE not reported. Pulp treatment for extensive decay in primary teeth (2018) · Cochrane All outcomes | RR 2.69 [0.57, 12.70] | 1 study · 56 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.