Primary study · included by 1 review

Rossi 2008

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.

Trial PICO

Not extracted yet. Trial-level population, intervention, comparator, outcomes and design will appear here after the trial extraction run. Until then, the reviews below describe the study.

Results

Not extracted yet. Per-trial results (events, means, effect and weight as each review's forest plot reports them) will appear here after the trial extraction run.

Included by

Does Er,Cr:YSGG reduce the microleakage of restorations when used for cavity preparation? A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Non-Cochrane · intervention · 2020 · cited as Rossi 2008 · Table 1; Reference 19; Results 'Primary outcomes' (narrative, excluded from meta-analysis)

Outcome this study informs	Pooled effect	Evidence	Certainty
Incidence of microleakage Traditional bur cavity preparation vs Er,Cr:YSGG laser cavity preparation	RR 1.26 [0.67, 2.38]	6 studies	Ungraded
Incidence of microleakage Traditional bur cavity preparation vs Er,Cr:YSGG laser cavity preparation	RR 1.27 [0.44, 3.67]	5 studies	Ungraded
Incidence of microleakage Traditional bur cavity preparation vs Er,Cr:YSGG laser cavity preparation	RR 1.03 [0.85, 1.25]	11 studies	Ungraded
Incidence of microleakage Traditional bur cavity preparation vs Er,Cr:YSGG laser cavity preparation	RR 0.87 [0.60, 1.27]	6 studies	Ungraded

1 including review in total.