Summary of findings 3. Direct pulp capping compared with direct pulp capping using alternative medicament for extensive decay in primary teeth.
| Direct pulp capping compared with direct pulp capping using alternative medicament for extensive decay in primary teeth | ||||||
|
Population: children with extensive decay in primary teeth Settings: primary care Intervention: direct pulp capping with 1 type of medicament Comparison: direct pulp capping using alternative medicament | ||||||
| Outcomes | Illustrative comparative risks* (95% CI) | Relative effect (95% CI) | Number of participants (studies) | Quality of the evidence (GRADE) | Comments | |
| Assumed risk | Corresponding risk | |||||
| Control | Experimental | |||||
| Seven trials evaluated 22 comparisons of different medicaments for direct pulp capping. Each comparison was assessed by a single trial. There were no clinical or radiological failures in two comparisons: acetone‐based total‐etch adhesive versus calcium hydroxide; MTA versus calcium hydroxide. | ||||||
| Clinical failure (at six, 12 and 24 months) | The quality of the evidence was assessed as low for 5 comparisons1: calcium hydroxide versus formocresol (favouring formocrescol), MTA versus 3Mix and MTA versus simvastatin (favouring MTA), 3Mix versus 3Mixtatin and 3Mixtatin versus simvastatin (favouring 3Mixtatin). The quality of the evidence was rated as very low for all other comparisons.2 |
|||||
| Radiological failure (at six, 12 and 24 months) | The quality of the evidence was rated as low for 1 comparison: calcium hydroxide versus formocresol1 (favouring formocresol). The quality of the evidence was rated as very low for all other comparisons.2 |
|||||
| *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; 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 1 level due to risk of bias and 1 level due to imprecision 2. Downgraded 1 level due to risk of bias and 2 levels due to severe imprecision