Primary study · included by 2 reviews

Miao 2016

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

Fracture resistance of teeth restored with polyethylene fibers reinforced composite restorations: a systematic review and meta-analysis of in vitro studies.

Non-Cochrane · intervention · 2025 · cited as Miao 2016 · Table 2; Results, forest plots (Figures 2-5)

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

Assessment of genetic susceptibility in patients with oral squamous cell carcinoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Non-Cochrane · aetiology · 2026 · cited as Miao 2016 · Reference list, ref 102

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

2 including reviews in total.