Burrow 2009.

Methods	Trial design: parallel‐group Location: dental school postgraduate clinic Bangkok, Thailand Funding source: none mentioned
Participants	Inclusion criteria: at least 1 moderate to deep primary occlusal caries (at least 2 mm deep after caries removal) in a first or second permanent molar without caries on other surfaces; at least 1 opposing tooth; periodontal tissues healthy or mildly inflamed without gingival recession/alveolar bone loss; no previous signs and symptoms of pulpal and periapical disease, preoperative sensitivity relieved immediately after removal of stimulus, and no spontaneous pain; at least 1 antagonist tooth with occlusal contact more than 50% of the occlusal surface Age: 18 to 40 years Exclusion criteria: either the cavity depth after caries removal was less than 2 mm or a pulp exposure or near pulp exposure, in which a calcium hydroxide agent was placed; psychological disorders; neurological diseases; TMD; pregnancy or lactation; patients taking any analgesic or anti‐inflammatory drugs regularly; allergies to materials used in the trial; teeth with previous restoration(s), tooth surface loss (attrition, erosion, abrasion or abfraction); teeth diagnosed with cracked tooth syndrome; teeth that had received orthodontic treatment in past 3 months Number of randomised individuals: 72 Number of randomised teeth: 106 Number of individuals evaluated: 70 Dropouts: 2
Interventions	RMGI liner under RBC restoration using 2 different bonding agents compared to no liner under RBC restoration using 2 different bonding agents
Outcomes	Postoperative hypersensitivity as measured CRM on a VAS, yes/no criteria, and also by patient reporting
Notes	Some participants had multiple restorations in different quadrants
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Low risk	Quote: "... blocking randomization list"
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Low risk	Quote: "... sealed envelope"
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	High risk	Quotes: "One to four restorations were randomly allocated in each patient by a single operator (DB) according to a blocking randomization list." "At recall, the evaluator (DB) was blinded to the restoration that was being evaluated"
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Low risk	Quote: "Two patients (three restorations) were lost during recall and were excluded before data analysis (from telephone interviewing, these patients reported no postoperative tooth sensitivity in daily function)"
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Low risk	Quote: "… five patients (five restorations) missed the one‐week recall; however, these patients were still included in the data analysis. All patients attended the one‐month recall"
Other bias	Low risk	None detected