evidencegaps
Search

What do systematic reviews say?

Refine by population, intervention, comparison or outcome
More filters
Evidence found and GRADE certainty

4 questions · 4 findings · 1 reviews · related questions CL0289

Sort:Best matchNewestHighest certaintyDownload CSV
No studies found 0 · 0%GRADE not reported 1 · 25%Very low 0 · 0%Low 3 · 75%Moderate 0 · 0%High 0 · 0%

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)

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).

1 finding from 1 review

Mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) root-end filling vs Intermediate restorative material (IRM)

Healing - 1 year · People requiring retreatment of periapical lesions (failed root canal therapy)

Mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) root-end filling showed no clear difference in healing - 1 year compared with intermediate restorative material (IRM) (low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) root-end filling vs Intermediate restorative material (IRM)

Healing rate · People requiring retreatment of periapical lesions (failed root canal therapy)

Mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) root-end filling showed no clear difference in healing - 2 years compared with intermediate restorative material (IRM); GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review