How is the quality of the available evidence on molar-incisor hypomineralization treatment? An overview of systematic reviews

Ref ID	867
First Author	M.V. Gevert
Journal	CLINICAL ORAL INVESTIGATIONS
Year Of Publishing	2022
URL	https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00784-022-04612-9
Keywords	• Protocols • Heterogeneity • Searching • Low methodological quality • Single reviewer • Risk of bias • Disclosure • Dentistry
Problem(s)	• No registered or published protocol • Conflicts of interest or funding of included studies not assessed • Reasons for excluding potentially eligible studies not provided • Insufficient literature searches • Inadequate analysis of heterogeneity
Number of systematic reviews included	5
Summary of Findings	From 5 included systematic reviews on treatments for molar-incisor hypomineralization indexed across PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, Web of Science, LILACS, Brazilian Bibliography of Dentistry and Cochrane Library up to March 2022. Three Systematic Reviews were rated as showing critically low methodological quality and high risk of bias. Only two systematic reviews registered a protocol, or made available lists of excluded studies and the reasons for exclusion. None of the studies reported the sources of financing of included studies and four of the five did not have a satisfactory explanation for the heterogeneity found. Four did not conduct a comprehensive search.
Did the article find that the problem(s) led to qualitative changes in interpretation of the results?	N/A
Are the methods of the article described in enough detail to replicate the study?	Yes