2021
DOI: 10.1007/s00784-020-03690-x
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Comparison between immediate and delayed post space preparations: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
10
0

Year Published

2021
2021
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
7

Relationship

2
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 12 publications
(10 citation statements)
references
References 57 publications
0
10
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Also, an ex vivo study observed a positive impact of DOM on the cleaning of post space walls, but the differences in the materials selected may explains the divergent results (Ferreira et al, 2015). In contrast with this study, the previous analysis used a zinc oxide eugenol sealer for root canal filling, which is known for a negative effect on the bond strength of adhesive materials (Dos Reis‐Prado et al, 2021), and a conventional cement for post cementation.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 93%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Also, an ex vivo study observed a positive impact of DOM on the cleaning of post space walls, but the differences in the materials selected may explains the divergent results (Ferreira et al, 2015). In contrast with this study, the previous analysis used a zinc oxide eugenol sealer for root canal filling, which is known for a negative effect on the bond strength of adhesive materials (Dos Reis‐Prado et al, 2021), and a conventional cement for post cementation.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 93%
“…The long‐term success of endodontic treatment with glass fiber post is directly influenced by the effective adhesion of the post with dentinal walls (Dos Reis‐Prado et al, 2021; Wang et al, 2019). The present study evaluated the influence of operator's age and experience with the use of DOM on the bond strength of glass fiber posts to dentin.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…independently assessed the methodological quality of the included studies, following the Joanna Briggs Institute Clinical Appraisal Checklist for Experimental Studies. This assessment tool was adapted from previously published systematic reviews [22][23][24]. The items on the checklist were as follows: (1) clearly mention aim, justification of sample size; (2) sample randomization; (3) blind treatment allocation; (4) possibility of comparison between control and treatment groups; (5) baseline equivalence of control and treatment groups; (6) clearly describe the preparation protocol; (7) clearly report the experimental protocol; (8) measurement method, and adequate statistical analysis.…”
Section: Methodological Quality Assessmentmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The present study was reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement (25,26). This systematic review was registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) under the registration number CRD42020213767.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Two investigators (AHRP and HGSC) independently assessed the methodological quality of the selected studies according to their levels of evidence as proposed by a modified version as described previously (26) in Joanna Briggs Institute critical appraisal checklist for experimental studies (27). To further characterize bleaching reporting in the selected studies, the authors also assessed if a clear bleaching protocol was present.…”
Section: Modified Risk Of Bias Assessmentmentioning
confidence: 99%