Primary study · included by 2 reviews

Malik 2021

ProbableThe reviews cited this study without a PMID, DOI or NCT, so it is matched by first author and year. Two different studies by the same author in the same year could be merged here.

Included by

Evaluating calcineurin inhibitors as alternatives to steroids in treating Oral Lichen Planus: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Non-Cochrane · intervention · 2026 · cited as Malik 2021 · Supplementary Table 1

The review does not say which of its outcomes this study informs.

Prevalence of Hypercementosis in Radiographic Studies: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis With Clinical Implications for Endodontic Assessment.

Non-Cochrane · prognostic · 2026 · cited as Malik 2021 · Table 4; Table 5

Outcome this study informs	Pooled effect	Evidence	Certainty
Patient-level prevalence of hypercementosis Radiographic assessment (periapical, panoramic or CBCT) vs Not applicable (single-group prevalence)	Prevalence (%) 3.45 [1.67, 6.99]	9 studies	GRADE not reported
Patient-level prevalence of hypercementosis Radiographic assessment (periapical, panoramic or CBCT) vs Not applicable (single-group prevalence)	Prevalence (%) 3.76 [3.46, 4.07]	10 studies · 14881 participants	GRADE not reported
Patient-level prevalence of hypercementosis Radiographic assessment (periapical, panoramic or CBCT) vs Not applicable (single-group prevalence)	Prevalence (%) 4.11 [2.11, 7.86]	9 studies	GRADE not reported
Patient-level prevalence of hypercementosis Radiographic assessment (periapical, panoramic or CBCT) vs Not applicable (single-group prevalence)	Prevalence (%) 3.78 [1.87, 7.49]	9 studies	GRADE not reported
Patient-level prevalence of hypercementosis Radiographic assessment (periapical, panoramic or CBCT) vs Not applicable (single-group prevalence)	Prevalence (%) 5.65 [3.56, 8.87]	9 studies	GRADE not reported
Patient-level prevalence of hypercementosis Radiographic assessment (periapical, panoramic or CBCT) vs Not applicable (single-group prevalence)	Prevalence (%) 3.44 [1.61, 7.20]	9 studies	GRADE not reported
Patient-level prevalence of hypercementosis Radiographic assessment (periapical, panoramic or CBCT) vs Not applicable (single-group prevalence)	Prevalence (%) 4.40 [2.28, 8.32]	9 studies	GRADE not reported
Patient-level prevalence of hypercementosis Radiographic assessment (periapical, panoramic or CBCT) vs Not applicable (single-group prevalence)	Prevalence (%) 3.65 [1.80, 7.29]	9 studies	GRADE not reported
Patient-level prevalence of hypercementosis Radiographic assessment (periapical, panoramic or CBCT) vs Not applicable (single-group prevalence)	Prevalence (%) 3.89 [2.04, 7.30]	10 studies · 14881 participants	Very low
Patient-level prevalence of hypercementosis Radiographic assessment (periapical, panoramic or CBCT) vs Not applicable (single-group prevalence)	Prevalence (%) 4.33 [2.23, 8.26]	9 studies	GRADE not reported
Patient-level prevalence of hypercementosis Radiographic assessment (periapical, panoramic or CBCT) vs Not applicable (single-group prevalence)	Prevalence (%) 3.39 [1.53, 7.32]	9 studies	GRADE not reported
Patient-level prevalence of hypercementosis Radiographic assessment (periapical, panoramic or CBCT) vs Not applicable (single-group prevalence)	Prevalence (%) 3.24 [1.58, 6.52]	9 studies	GRADE not reported

2 including reviews in total.