Findings

What do systematic reviews say?

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

3,801 questions · 4,079 findings · 473 reviews

No studies found 669 · 16.4%GRADE not reported 852 · 20.9%Very low 738 · 18.1%Low 903 · 22.1%Moderate 716 · 17.6%High 201 · 4.9%

Calcium-enriched mixture (CEM) cement vs Mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA)

Radiological failure · Children with extensive decay involving the dental pulp in primary teeth
2 findings from 1 review

ProRoot MTA vs RetroMTA

Radiological failure · Children with extensive decay involving the dental pulp in primary teeth

ProRoot MTA showed no clear difference in radiological failure compared with retroMTA; GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Vitapex (calcium hydroxide/iodoform) vs Sealapex (eugenol-free calcium hydroxide)

Radiological failure · Children with extensive decay involving the dental pulp in primary teeth

Vitapex (calcium hydroxide/iodoform) showed no clear difference in radiological failure compared with sealapex (eugenol-free calcium hydroxide); GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Glutaraldehyde + zinc oxide and eugenol (ZOE) vs Full strength formocresol (FC)

Radiological failure · Children with extensive decay involving the dental pulp in primary teeth

Glutaraldehyde + zinc oxide and eugenol (ZOE) showed no clear difference in radiological failure compared with full strength formocresol (FC); GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review