Findings

What do systematic reviews say?

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

480 questions · 559 findings · 16 reviews · Endodontics and dental trauma

No studies found 75 · 13.4%GRADE not reported 394 · 70.5%Very low 39 · 7%Low 36 · 6.4%Moderate 14 · 2.5%High 1 · 0.2%

Pre-operative bone level < 35% vs Pre-operative bone level ≥ 35%

Periapical pathosis incidence · Vital teeth

One study reported a 1.4% incidence with bone level < 35%.

2 findings from 1 review

Indirect restorations (crowns, fixed partial dentures, inlays/onlays/veneers) vs None (single-group incidence)

Periapical pathosis · Vital teeth restored with indirect restorations

Periapical pathosis incidence among follow-up >5-10 years was 3.88% (subgroup analysis; not GRADE-rated).

6 findings from 1 review
Show 3 more findings

Resin-modified glass ionomer cement for bonding orthodontic brackets vs Resin composite restoration

Restoration failure · Children with carious primary teeth

No comparative effect estimate was reported; both arms had 16% failure.

1 finding from 1 review

Bulk-fill composite resin with 15-second dentine etching vs Bulk-fill composite resin with 7-second dentine etching

Restoration failure · Children with carious primary teeth

No comparative effect estimate was reported; the 7-second etching arm had a lower tabulated failure rate.

1 finding from 1 review

HVGIC Fuji IX Gold Label vs HVGIC Vitro Molar and Maxxion R

Restoration failure · Children with carious primary teeth

No comparative effect estimate was reported; failure rates were tabulated.

1 finding from 1 review

Conventional GIC vs Compomer and glass carbomer

Restoration failure · Children with carious primary teeth

No comparative effect estimate was reported; cumulative failure was highest for glass carbomer.

1 finding from 1 review

High-viscosity glass-ionomer cement (HVGIC) restoration (conventional restorative approach) vs Resin composite restoration

Restoration failure · Children with carious primary teeth

No comparative effect estimate was reported; composite resin outperformed HVGIC in the review narrative.

1 finding from 1 review

HVGIC with chlorhexidine cavity disinfectant vs HVGIC without cavity disinfectant

Restoration failure · Children with carious primary teeth

No comparative effect estimate was reported; cavity disinfectant did not affect success in the review narrative.

1 finding from 1 review

Amalgam vs Light-cured compomer (polyacid-modified composite resin)

Restoration failure · Children with carious primary teeth

No comparative effect estimate was reported; the review described similar clinical performance.

1 finding from 1 review

Compomer (Dyract) vs HVGIC Equia Forte and Chemfil Rock

Restoration failure · Children with carious primary teeth

No comparative effect estimate was reported; compomer had more favorable retention in the review narrative.

1 finding from 1 review