Does the use of different scaffolds have an impact on the therapeutic efficacy of regenerative endodontic procedures? A systematic evaluation and meta-analysis

Table 2 Certainty of the evidence (GRADE) for the meta-analysis using the clinical success rate, increment in root length, increment in root canal wall thickness, pulp vitality test, and postoperative intracanal calcification

Outcomes	Included studies(participants)	Type of study	Factors that downgrade the certainty of the evidence					Relative effect (95% CI)	Certainty of the evidence
Outcomes	Included studies(participants)	Type of study	Risk of bias	Indirectness	Inconsistency	Imprecision	Publication bias	Relative effect (95% CI)	Certainty of the evidence
Clinical success rate	12 (240)	RCT	Not downgraded	Not downgraded	Not downgraded	Not downgraded	Not downgraded	RR 0.99 (0.94,1.05)	⊕⊕⊕⊕/A
Increment of root length	6 (145)		Not downgraded	Not downgraded	Downgraded^a	Downgraded ²	/	MD -1.02 (-4.94,2.91)	⊕⊕⊝⊝/C
Increment of root canal wall thickness	5 (134)		Not downgraded	Not downgraded	Downgraded^a	Downgraded ²	/	MD -5.09 (-11.46,1.28)	⊕⊕⊝⊝/C
Pulp vitality test	6 (175)		Not downgraded	Not downgraded	Downgraded^a	Not downgraded	/	RR 0.77 (0.61,0.97)	⊕⊕⊕⊝/B
Postoperative intracanal calcification	2 (59)		Not downgraded	Not downgraded	Not downgraded	Downgraded²	/	RR 1.12 (0.80,1.58)	⊕⊕⊕⊝/B

^aRefers to a significant inconsistency (I² > 80% and P < 0.1); 2 refers to a sample size that was not sufficient, which led to a overly wide confidence interval; A refers to a high certainty of evidence, B refers to a moderate certainty of evidence and C refers to a low certainty of evidence

ISSN: 1472-6831