Akpata 2001

Methods	Trial design: Split‐mouth Location: Dental school, Saudi Arabia Funding source: None mentioned
Participants	Inclusion criteria: Occlusal caries on contralateral posterior teeth with small or moderately large carious lesions ‐ the bucco‐lingual dimensions of each cavity were less than half the intercuspal width Age: Males 16‐52 years Exclusion criteria: Orofacial pain, including toothache, percussion tenderness, periapical radiolucency Number of randomised individuals: n/a Number of randomised teeth: 88 Number of individuals evaluated: 44 Dropouts: None
Interventions	RMGI liner under RBC restoration (no bonding agent used) compared to no liner (bonding agent only) under RBC restoration
Outcomes	Postoperative hypersensitivity as measured by CRM in time (seconds) and patient reporting
Notes	Based on these data the study authors concluded that the liner group had less sensitivity but it seems that both groups had no clinically significant sensitivity after 30 days
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Quote: "There was randomization in the selection of the right and left teeth for the adhesive or glass‐ionomer lining" Comment: No other additional information was provided ‐ it is unclear how the randomization was performed and how easy it would have been for the operators to deviate from the randomization prescribed
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Unclear risk	No information provided
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	Participants may or may not have been blinded – no information provided. Operator was not blinded – knew which tooth received liner
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	Low risk	"The measurement of CRM at the recall visits was by another dentist who was unaware of the lining that the experimental teeth had received"
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Low risk	No participants dropped out
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Low risk	All data reported
Other bias	High risk	A validated instrument to measure patient‐reported sensitivity was not used