Table 4 Case study: compliance of systematic review evidence with conditions for coherence of evidence
Systematic review | Review conclusion | Evidence in regard to conditions for coherence of evidence | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Â | Â | (i) | (ii) | (iii) | (iv) | (v) | (vi) |
Yengopal et al., 2009 [17] | ... indicating no difference in the caries-preventive effect of GIC and resin-based fissure sealant material | Â | 2 | Â | Â | 5a | 6 |
Yengopal and Mickenautsch, 2010 [19] | ... found no conclusive evidence that either material was superior to the other in preventing dental caries | Â | 2 | Â | Â | 5b | 6 |
Mickenautsch et al., 2010 [21] | ... indicating no difference in the caries preventive effect between both types of materials | Â | Â | Â | 4 | Â | Â |
Mickenautsch et al., 2010 [22] | In the permanent dentition the longevity of ART is equal to or greater than that of equivalent amalgam restorations for up to 6.3 years and is site-dependent. No difference was observed in primary teeth. | Â | Â | 3 | Â | Â | Â |
Mickenautsch et al., 2009 [18] | Carious lesions at margins of single-surface GIC restorations are less common than with amalgam fillings after 6 years in permanent teeth. No difference was observed in primary teeth. | Â | 2 | Â | Â | 5a | Â |
Mickenautsch and Yengopal, 2010 [20] | The evidence suggests that RM-GIC is associated with a higher reduction of demineralization in adjacent hard tooth tissue than that of composite resin without fluoride. No difference was found when RM-GIC was compared with fluoride-containing composite. | 1 | Â | Â | Â | Â | Â |
Yengopal and Mickenautsch, 2011 [23] | The overall results showed no difference between the materials or indicated that RM-GIC has a superior caries-preventive effect. | Â | 2 | Â | Â | 5b | Â |
Evidence | Compliance/non-compliance with conditions for coherence of evidence | ||||||
1 | Compliance. No lower remineralisation than that of control was observed, as per condition (i). | ||||||
2 | Compliance. No lower absence of caries than that of control was observed, as per condition (ii). | ||||||
3 | Compliance. No lower survival rate was observed, as per condition (iii). | ||||||
4 | Compliance. No difference was observed, as per condition (iv). | ||||||
5a | Compliance. No difference was observed for RM-GIC, as per condition (v). | ||||||
5b | Compliance. No difference was observed for GIC, as per condition (v). | ||||||
6 | Compliance. No difference was observed, as per condition (vi). | ||||||