Findings

What do systematic reviews say?

3 questions · 3 findings · 1 reviews · Endodontics and dental trauma

Sort:Best matchNewest Highest certainty Download CSV

No studies found 0 · 0%GRADE not reported 2 · 66.7%Very low 0 · 0%Low 1 · 33.3%Moderate 0 · 0%High 0 · 0%

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

Endodontic procedures for retreatment of periapical lesions 2016 · Cochrane All outcomes
2 years
RR 1.05 [0.92, 1.20]
1 study · 108 participants
GRADE not reported

Glass ionomer cement root-end filling vs Amalgam restoration

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

Glass ionomer cement root-end filling showed no clear difference in healing - 5 years compared with amalgam; GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Endodontic procedures for retreatment of periapical lesions 2016 · Cochrane All outcomes
5 years
RR 1.00 [0.84, 1.20]
1 study · 67 participants
GRADE not reported

Surgical microscope (magnification) vs Endoscope

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

Surgical microscope (magnification) showed no clear difference in healing - 2 years (microscope vs endoscope) compared with endoscope (low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Endodontic procedures for retreatment of periapical lesions 2016 · Cochrane All outcomes
2 years
RR 1.01 [0.89, 1.15]
1 study · 70 participants
Low