Skip to main content

Table 4 Results of individual datasets

From: Absence of carious lesions at margins of glass-ionomer cement and amalgam restorations: An update of systematic review evidence

Article

DS

RR

95% CI

p-value

Welbury et al., 1991 [20]

01

0.64

0.27 - 1.51

0.31

Östlund et al., 1992 [21]

02

0.73

0.03 - 16.47

0.84

Taifour et al., 2002 [22]

03

0.57

0.24 - 1.36

0.21

 

04

0.35

0.11 - 1.10

0.07

Mandari et al., 2003 [23]

05

0.18

0.05 - 0.59

0.005*

Frencken et al., 2007 [24]

06

0.52

0.25 - 1.08

0.08

Daou et al., 2009 [25]

07

4.36

0.51 - 37.09

0.18

 

08

0.91

0.21 - 4.04

0.90

Mandari et al., 2001 [27]

09

0.56

0.25 - 1.24

0.15

Yu et al., 2004 [28]

10

Not estimable

 

11

Not estimable

Svanberg, 1992 [29]

12

0.14

0.01 - 2.53

0.18

 

13

0.33

0.12 - 0.91

0.03*

Qvist et al., 1997 [26]

14

0.59

0.28 - 1.25

0.17

 

15

0.48

0.32 - 0.71

0.0003*

 

16

0.57

0.38 - 0.87

0.0009*

 

17

0.91

0.73 - 1.13

0.38

  1. DS = Dataset number; RR = Relative risk; CI = Confidence interval; Not estimable = data from both treatment groups are essentially the same: p = 1.00.
  2. * Statistically significant difference, in favour of GIC.