Findings

What do systematic reviews say?

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

23 questions · 24 findings · 2 reviews · Endodontics and dental trauma · All outcomes

No studies found 6 · 25%GRADE not reported 7 · 29.2%Very low 8 · 33.3%Low 3 · 12.5%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