Findings

What do systematic reviews say?

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

606 questions · 682 findings · 77 reviews

No studies found 99 · 14.5%GRADE not reported 215 · 31.5%Very low 197 · 28.9%Low 102 · 15%Moderate 48 · 7%High 21 · 3.1%

Calcium hydroxide (CH) vs Mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA)

Overall success (composite of clinical and radiographic success) · Patients with carious pulp exposure in permanent teeth undergoing pulpotomy

For pulpotomy, whether MTA improves success over calcium hydroxide is uncertain (OR 2.36, 95% CI 0.47-11.75; low certainty; CI includes no effect).

1 finding from 1 review

Calcium hydroxide (CH) vs Biodentine

Overall success (composite of clinical and radiographic success) · Patients with carious pulp exposure in permanent teeth undergoing DPC or pulpotomy

Biodentine appeared to perform better than calcium hydroxide for success, but the evidence was not pooled (2 RCTs; ungraded).

1 finding from 1 review

Calcium hydroxide (CH) vs Mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA)

Overall success (composite of clinical and radiographic success) · Patients with carious pulp exposure in mature permanent teeth

In mature teeth, MTA probably achieves higher clinical and radiographic success than calcium hydroxide (OR 3.34, 95% CI 1.81-6.17; moderate certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) vs Calcium hydroxide (CH)

Overall success (composite of clinical and radiographic success) · Patients with carious pulp exposure in permanent teeth undergoing direct pulp capping

MTA increases clinical and radiographic success versus CH after direct pulp capping (moderate certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Calcium hydroxide (CH) vs Mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA)

Overall success (composite of clinical and radiographic success) · Patients with carious pulp exposure in permanent teeth undergoing DPC or pulpotomy

MTA achieved higher clinical and radiographic success than calcium hydroxide overall (OR 2.94, 95% CI 1.96-4.49; low certainty), but this unadjusted estimate pools clinically heterogeneous DPC and pulpotomy studies.

1 finding from 1 review

Calcium hydroxide (CH) vs Mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA)

Continued root formation / root development · Patients with carious pulp exposure in permanent teeth (predominantly immature) undergoing DPC or pulpotomy

Evidence on continued root formation for calcium hydroxide versus MTA is weak and inconclusive (3 RCTs, not pooled; ungraded).

1 finding from 1 review

Mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) vs Calcium hydroxide (CH)

Overall success (composite of clinical and radiographic success) · Patients with carious pulp exposure in permanent teeth with mixed root development

The effect of MTA versus CH in teeth with mixed root development is very uncertain (very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Biodentine vs Mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA)

Overall success (composite of clinical and radiographic success) · Patients with carious pulp exposure in permanent teeth undergoing DPC or pulpotomy

MTA and Biodentine performed comparably for clinical and radiographic success (5 RCTs, not pooled; ungraded).

1 finding from 1 review

Mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) vs Calcium hydroxide (CH)

Overall success (composite of clinical and radiographic success) · Patients with carious pulp exposure in mature permanent teeth

MTA increases clinical and radiographic success versus CH in mature teeth (moderate certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Pulpotomy (full or partial) vs None (single-arm pooled success proportion)

Overall success (composite of clinical and radiographic success) · Human permanent teeth with irreversible pulpitis due to carious pulp exposure

Among 6 observational studies, pooled pulpotomy success was 92.6 per 100 (95% CI 0.86-0.96), very low certainty.

4 findings from 1 review
Show 1 more finding

Pulpotomy with Calcium Enriched Mixture (CEM) vs Pulpotomy with calcium hydroxide (Ca(OH)2)

Overall success (composite of clinical and radiographic success) · Human permanent teeth with irreversible pulpitis due to carious pulp exposure

CEM and calcium hydroxide did not differ significantly in pulpotomy success (indirect comparison); ungraded.

1 finding from 1 review

Pulpotomy (full or partial) vs None (single-arm pooled success proportion)

Overall success (composite of clinical and radiographic success) · Human permanent teeth with asymptomatic irreversible pulpitis due to carious pulp exposure

In asymptomatic irreversible pulpitis, pooled pulpotomy success was 91.3% (95% CI 80-96.5%); ungraded.

1 finding from 1 review

Pulpotomy with Biodentine vs Pulpotomy with Calcium Enriched Mixture (CEM)

Overall success (composite of clinical and radiographic success) · Human permanent teeth with irreversible pulpitis due to carious pulp exposure

Biodentine had a significantly higher pulpotomy success rate than CEM (indirect comparison; numeric estimate not available); ungraded.

1 finding from 1 review

Pulpotomy with mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) vs Pulpotomy with Calcium Enriched Mixture (CEM)

Overall success (composite of clinical and radiographic success) · Human permanent teeth with irreversible pulpitis due to carious pulp exposure

MTA and CEM did not differ significantly in pulpotomy success (indirect comparison); ungraded.

1 finding from 1 review

Pulpotomy with Biodentine vs Pulpotomy with calcium hydroxide (Ca(OH)2)

Overall success (composite of clinical and radiographic success) · Human permanent teeth with irreversible pulpitis due to carious pulp exposure

Biodentine had a significantly higher pulpotomy success rate than calcium hydroxide (indirect comparison; numeric estimate not available); ungraded.

1 finding from 1 review

Tixagevimab/cilgavimab vs placebo

Infection with SARS‐CoV‐2 within 6 months · SARS‐CoV‐2 uninfected people without defined exposure, or with potential exposure to SARS‐CoV‐2

Tixagevimab/cilgavimab probably leads to lower infection with SARS‐CoV‐2 within 6 months compared with placebo (moderate certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Casirivimab/imdevimab vs placebo

Development of clinical COVID‐19 symptoms within 6 months · SARS‐CoV‐2 uninfected people without defined exposure, or with potential exposure to SARS‐CoV‐2

Casirivimab/imdevimab may leads to lower development of clinical COVID‐19 symptoms within 6 months compared with placebo (low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review