Browning 2006.
| Methods | Trial design: parallel‐group Location: dental school, USA Funding source: none mentioned |
|
| Participants | Inclusion criteria: adults in need of only 1 moderate to large Class II or complex Class I restoration on a molar; occlusally the final margin had to extend more than halfway from the central groove to the cusp tip; interproximally, the final facial and/or lingual margin of the proximal box had to extend at least halfway between minimal clearance and the line angle; no contraindications to routine dental treatment; participant had to be likely to remain in the area for the length of the study Age: adults (specific age not reported) Exclusion criteria: removal of caries resulting in exposure of dental pulp Number of randomised individuals: 50 Number of randomised teeth: 25 teeth in each group Number of individuals evaluated: 44 Dropouts: 6 total ‐ 3 from each group |
|
| Interventions | Flowable liner under 1 brand RBC restoration compared to no flowable liner under another brand of RBC restoration | |
| Outcomes | Restoration longevity | |
| Notes | Results for marginal staining reported in Table 1 for only 43 of the 44 restorations evaluated. (1) "restoration experienced a bulk fracture and loss of restorative material substantial enough to expose the dentin. The loss of restorative material created a situation where it was not possible to rate this restoration for any of the other categories" (page 365). Additionally, half of the restorations in each group also received surface sealer postplacement and two subjects were not treated due to depth of caries (pulp exposures anticipated). It should also be noted that although the authors listed postoperative sensitivity among the criteria to be evaluated they did not mention how this would be measured and they did not include any data for this criteria or provide any information in the results nor discussion regarding postoperative sensitivity. Therefore, we included this study only in the longevity portion of this review | |
| Risk of bias | ||
| Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
| Random sequence generation (selection bias) | Unclear risk | Quote: "At the operative appointment, eligible participants were randomly assigned to 1 of 4 groups. While the operators were aware of this assignment, the evaluators and the participants were not. Thus the study design was a randomized, double‐blind clinical trial" |
| Allocation concealment (selection bias) | Unclear risk | No information provided |
| Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes | Low risk | Participants were blinded but operators were not |
| Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes | Low risk | Quote: ".... the evaluators and the participants were not aware of the assignment" |
| Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes | High risk | There is no mention of how missing data due to dropouts were treated |
| Selective reporting (reporting bias) | Low risk | All relevant outcomes reported |
| Other bias | Low risk | None detected |