Are high-viscosity glass-ionomer cements inferior to silver amalgam as restorative materials for permanent posterior teeth? A Bayesian analysis

Table 1 Bayesian probability analysis

1. Hypotheses
H1: HVGICs are clinically inferior to amalgam as restorative materials in posterior permanent teeth		H2: HVGICs are clinically not inferior to amalgam as restorative materials in posterior permanent teeth
2. Prior Odds of hypothesis H1 relative to H2
a. Evidence	Evidence 1 [1, 10]
	P(H1) = n_H1 / N = 9 out of 17 = 0.53
	P(H2) = n_H2 / N = 8 out of 17 = 0.47
	Odds_Pre = P(H1) / P(H2)
	Odds_Pre = 0.53 / 0.47
b. Odds_Pre	=1.12
3. Likelihood Ratio (LR) in support of hypothesis H1 relative to hypothesis H2
a. New Evidence	Evidence 1 [1, 10]
	P₁(E₁\|H1) = 0.50
	P₁(E₁\|H2) = 0.50
	Evidence 2 [8, 9]
	P₂(E₂\|H1) = n_H1 / N₃ = 0 out of 3 = 0
	P₂(E₂\|H2) = n_H2 / N₃ = 3 out of 3 = 1.00
	LR = P₁(E₁\|H1)/ P₁(E₁\|H2) × P₂(E₂\|H1)/ P₂(E₂\|H2)
	LR = (0.50/0.50) × (0/1.00)
b. LR	=0
4. Posterior Odds of hypothesis H1 relative to H2
a. Calculation	Odds_Post = Odds_Pre × LR
	Odds_Post = 1.12 × 0
b. Odds_Post	=0

ISSN: 1472-6831