evidencegaps
Findings

What do systematic reviews say?

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

3 questions · 4 findings · 2 reviews

Sort:Best matchNewestHighest certaintyDownload CSV
No studies found 2 · 50%GRADE not reported 0 · 0%Very low 1 · 25%Low 1 · 25%Moderate 0 · 0%High 0 · 0%

A permanent restorative material or technique (e.g. amalgam; glass ionomer (type I-IV); composite resin (macrofilled, microfilled, hybrid, nanofilled); resin-modified glass ionomer (compomer, giomer); cement/cermet; stainless steel or nickel-chrome crown; pre-fabricated resin/porcelain veneer facing; microabrasion) vs A different permanent restorative material or technique

Outcome not reported · Children and adolescents under 18 years with amelogenesis imperfecta requiring restorative care of anterior teeth, irrespective of…

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

A permanent restorative material or technique (e.g. amalgam; glass ionomer (type I-IV); composite resin (macrofilled, microfilled, hybrid, nanofilled); resin-modified glass ionomer (compomer, giomer); cement/cermet; stainless steel or nickel-chrome crown; pre-fabricated resin/porcelain veneer facing; microabrasion) vs A different permanent restorative material or technique

Outcome not reported · Children and adolescents under 18 years with amelogenesis imperfecta requiring restorative care of posterior teeth, irrespective of…

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Composite resin vs Glass ionomer cement (GIC)

Secondary caries · Patients requiring dental restoration; permanent teeth

Over 1 year in permanent teeth, resin composite showed no statistically significant difference in secondary caries versus GIC (RR 3.05, 95% CI 0.95-9.79; low certainty).

2 findings from 1 review