Findings

What do systematic reviews say?

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

120 questions · 126 findings · 6 reviews · Endodontics and dental trauma

No studies found 21 · 16.7%GRADE not reported 78 · 61.9%Very low 16 · 12.7%Low 11 · 8.7%Moderate 0 · 0%High 0 · 0%

Super ethoxybenzoic acid (Super-EBA) vs Intermediate restorative material (IRM)

Success rate at 1 year · Patients needing retrograde filling in root canal therapy (orthograde root canal filling or retreatment not possible; periapical surgery…

It is very uncertain whether super ethoxybenzoic acid (Super-EBA) changes success rate at 1 year compared with intermediate restorative material (IRM) (very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Dentine-bonded resin composite vs Glass ionomer cement (GIC)

Success rate at 1 year · Patients needing retrograde filling in root canal therapy (orthograde root canal filling or retreatment not possible; periapical surgery…

It is very uncertain whether dentine-bonded resin composite changes success rate at 1 year (root as unit, per-protocol analysis) compared with glass ionomer cement (very low certainty).

2 findings from 1 review

Mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) vs Super ethoxybenzoic acid (Super-EBA)

Treatment success rate · Patients needing retrograde filling in root canal therapy (orthograde root canal filling or retreatment not possible; periapical surgery…

Mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) showed no clear difference in success rate at 4 years compared with super ethoxybenzoic acid (Super-EBA); GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) vs Intermediate restorative material (IRM)

Success rate at 1 year · Patients needing retrograde filling in root canal therapy (orthograde root canal filling or retreatment not possible; periapical surgery…

It is very uncertain whether mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) changes success rate at 1 year compared with intermediate restorative material (IRM) (very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) vs Root repair material (RRM)

Success rate at 1 year · Patients needing retrograde filling in root canal therapy (orthograde root canal filling or retreatment not possible; periapical surgery…

It is very uncertain whether mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) changes success rate at 1 year compared with root repair material (RRM) (very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) vs Intermediate restorative material (IRM)

Success rate (radiographically‐assessed healing of cyst healing based on the Neer/Cole rating system) · Patients needing retrograde filling in root canal therapy (orthograde root canal filling or retreatment not possible; periapical surgery…

Mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) showed no clear difference in success rate at 2 years compared with intermediate restorative material (IRM); GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) vs Super ethoxybenzoic acid (Super-EBA)

Success rate at 1 year · Patients needing retrograde filling in root canal therapy (orthograde root canal filling or retreatment not possible; periapical surgery…

It is very uncertain whether mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) changes success rate at 1 year compared with super ethoxybenzoic acid (Super-EBA) (very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Selective caries removal (SCR) + composite resin vs Complete caries removal (CCR) + composite resin

Restoration failure · Children with carious primary teeth after vital or non-vital pulp therapy

In one RCT, selective caries removal had a 3.44 higher probability of failure than complete caries removal.

1 finding from 1 review

Composite strip crowns with composite, fiber, or reverse metal posts vs Alternative post type

Restoration failure · Children with carious primary teeth after vital or non-vital pulp therapy

In one RCT, composite strip crowns with composite posts had an annual failure rate of 2.3% after 1 year.

1 finding from 1 review

Compomer (C) vs Resin composite restoration

Treatment failure (annual failure rate) · Children with carious primary molars treated by pulpotomy (vital pulp therapy)

Compomer restorations had an annual failure rate of 8.9% in primary molars after pulpotomy, higher than composite resin in the same trial (single high-risk-of-bias RCT; low quality of evidence; not GRADE-rated).

2 findings from 1 review

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

Restoration failure · Children with carious primary teeth after vital or non-vital pulp therapy

In one RCT, composite resin had an annual failure rate of 0% after 2 years.

1 finding from 1 review

Composite strip crown (CSC) with a post (microhybrid composite resin, Amelogen) vs Post type: composite post (CP) vs fibre post (FP) vs reverse metal post (RMP)

Treatment failure (annual failure rate) · Children with severely decayed maxillary primary incisors treated by pulpectomy (non-vital pulp therapy)

Composite strip crowns with composite posts had a low annual failure rate (2.3%) in maxillary primary incisors after pulpectomy (single high-risk-of-bias RCT; low quality of evidence; not GRADE-rated).

3 findings from 1 review