Skip to main content

Advertisement

Table 4 Case study: compliance of systematic review evidence with conditions for coherence of evidence

From: Coherence of evidence from systematic reviews as a basis for evidence strength - a case study in support of an epistemological proposition

Systematic review Review conclusion Evidence in regard to conditions for coherence of evidence
   (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   2    5a 6
Yengopal and Mickenautsch, 2010 [19] ... found no conclusive evidence that either material was superior to the other in preventing dental caries   2    5b 6
Mickenautsch et al., 2010 [21] ... indicating no difference in the caries preventive effect between both types of materials     4   
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.    3    
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.   2    5a  
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      
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.   2    5b  
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).
  1. GIC glass-ionomer cement; ART tooth restoration with GIC; RM-GIC resin-modified GIC.