Primary study · included by 1 review
Fracture resistance of mechanically compromised premolars restored with polyethylene fiber and adhesive materials
Costa 2014 · Costa S., Silva-Sousa Y., Curylofo F., et al. · International Journal of Adhesion and Adhesives · 2014
Included by
| Outcome this study informs | Pooled effect | Evidence | Certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Fracture resistance (N) Polyethylene fiber-reinforced composite resin restoration vs Non-fiber-reinforced composite resin restoration · After fracture strength test | SMD -0.82 [-1.16, -0.49] | 28 studies · 1164 participants | GRADE not reported |
Number of unfavorable/catastrophic failures after fracture test Polyethylene fiber-reinforced composite resin restoration vs Non-fiber-reinforced composite resin restoration · After fracture strength test | RD -0.15 [-0.21, -0.09] | 17 studies · 726 participants | GRADE not reported |
Number of unfavorable/catastrophic failures after fracture test Polyethylene fiber-reinforced fiber post (intraradicular) vs Conventional fiber post / non-fiber-reinforced control · After fracture strength test | RD -0.50 [-0.73, -0.27] | 2 studies · 40 participants | GRADE not reported |
Fracture resistance (N) Polyethylene fiber-reinforced fiber post (intraradicular) vs Conventional fiber post / non-fiber-reinforced control · After fracture strength test | SMD -0.76 [-1.17, -0.35] | 4 studies · 160 participants | GRADE not reported |
1 including review in total.