evidencegaps
Findings

What do systematic reviews say?

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

3 questions · 5 findings · 2 reviews · Endodontics and dental trauma · All outcomes

Sort:Best matchNewestHighest certaintyDownload CSV
No studies found 0 · 0%GRADE not reported 5 · 100%Very low 0 · 0%Low 0 · 0%Moderate 0 · 0%High 0 · 0%

Non-metal carbon-fibre post and core (Category III; Composipost) vs Metal custom-cast post and core (Category I)

Clinical/technical failure (root fracture) · Participants with permanent endodontically-treated (root-filled) teeth for which a post is indicated to retain the final restoration

Non-metal carbon-fibre post and core (Category III; Composipost) led to lower clinical/technical failure (root fracture) compared with metal custom-cast post and core (Category I; gold alloy); GRADE not reported.

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

Direct composite resin restoration vs Full-coverage metal-ceramic crown

Clinical failure (post dislodgement) · Participants with endodontically-treated permanent premolars restored with a carbon-fibre post (Category III)

Direct composite restoration (final restoration) showed no clear difference in clinical failure (post dislodgement) compared with full-coverage metal-ceramic crown; GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review