Primary study · included by 1 review
Bis[2-(cyclo-pentyl-imino-meth-yl)-4-nitro-phenolato-κN,O]cobalt(II).
Kochhar 2011 · Xu Mai, Wei Yi-Jun, Wang Feng-Wu · Acta crystallographica. Section E, Structure reports online · 2011
Included by
| Outcome this study informs | Pooled effect | Evidence | Certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Operative time Chemomechanical caries removal (CMCR), any agent vs Conventional mechanical caries removal (bur, curette or polymer bur) | SMD 1.89 [0.99, 2.79] | 10 studies | GRADE not reported |
Caries removal efficacy Chemomechanical caries removal (CMCR), any agent vs Conventional mechanical caries removal (bur, curette or polymer bur) | SMD 1.18 [0.5, 1.85] | 4 studies · 287 participants | High |
Pain intensity (continuous) Chemomechanical caries removal (CMCR), any agent vs Conventional mechanical caries removal (bur, curette or polymer bur) | SMD -0.04 [-0.26, 0.17] | NR | GRADE not reported |
Pain intensity (continuous) Chemomechanical caries removal (CMCR), any agent vs Conventional mechanical caries removal (bur, curette or polymer bur) | SMD -2.22 [-2.88, -1.55] | NR | GRADE not reported |
Operative time Chemomechanical caries removal (CMCR), any agent vs Conventional mechanical caries removal (bur, curette or polymer bur) | SMD 2.75 [0.78, 4.73] | 4 studies | GRADE not reported |
Pain intensity (continuous) Chemomechanical caries removal (CMCR), any agent vs Conventional mechanical caries removal (bur, curette or polymer bur) | SMD -1.7 [-2.19, -1.21] | 9 studies · 1635 participants | High |
Pain intensity (continuous) Chemomechanical caries removal (CMCR), any agent vs Conventional mechanical caries removal (bur, curette or polymer bur) | SMD -0.52 [-0.81, -0.24] | NR | GRADE not reported |
Operative time Chemomechanical caries removal (CMCR), any agent vs Conventional mechanical caries removal (bur, curette or polymer bur) | SMD 2.1 [1.31, 2.89] | 14 studies · 1209 participants | Moderate |
1 including review in total.