Summary of findings for the main comparison. Rubber dam versus cotton rolls for restorative treatment in dental patients.
| Rubber dam versus cotton rolls for restorative treatment in dental patients | ||||||
| Patient or population: dental patients Settings: China and Kenya Intervention: rubber dam versus cotton rolls | ||||||
| Outcomes | Illustrative comparative risks* (95% CI) | Relative effect (95% CI) | No of participants (studies) | Quality of the evidence (GRADE) | Comments | |
| Assumed risk | Corresponding risk | |||||
| Cotton rolls | Rubber dam | |||||
| Survival rate (6 months) assessed clinically and radiographically Follow‐up: mean 6 months | 765 per 1000 | 910 per 1000 (796 to 1000) | RR 1.19 (1.04 to 1.37) | 162 (1 study) | ⊕⊝⊝⊝ very low1 | There was weak evidence showing that the use of rubber dam might result in higher survival rate of the restorations compared to cotton rolls at 6 months' follow‐up Weak evidence also indicating the usage of rubber dam might relatively increase the survival rate of restorations after 24 months' follow‐up compared to cotton rolls (HR 0.80, 95% CI 0.66 to 0.97; 559 participants; 1 study; very low‐quality evidence) |
| *The basis for the assumed risk (e.g. the median control group risk across studies) is provided in footnotes. The corresponding risk (and its 95% confidence interval) is based on the assumed risk in the comparison group and the relative effect of the intervention (and its 95% CI) CI: confidence interval; HR: hazard ratio; RR: risk ratio | ||||||
| GRADE Working Group grades of evidence High quality: Further research is very unlikely to change our confidence in the estimate of effect. Moderate quality: Further research is likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and may change the estimate. Low quality: Further research is very likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and is likely to change the estimate. Very low quality: We are very uncertain about the estimate. | ||||||
1 Downgraded 3 times due to being a single study, at high risk of bias and for indirectness: the included study had high risk of bias and was only conducted in China or Kenya population that may not be applicable in other populations.