Table 1.
Eletronic databases and research strategies.
Fig 1.
From Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, The PRISMA Group (2009). Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement. PLoS Med 6(7): e1000097. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed1000097.
*: 5 only studied monomethacrylates, 3 only studied dimethacrylates, 3 studied provisional restoration repair, 2 used thermoplastic polyester, 1 examined provisional cement, 1 assessed reinforcing monomethacrylate materials with fiberglass, and 2 were narrative literature reviews **: Incomplete description of materials, methods or details of the experimental procedure, difficult to replicate the test, not following standardized test procedures, not describing bias reduction strategies, no calculation of sample size, incomplete statistical analysis, no conflict of interests statement, Limited interpretation and comparison of results with the available literature.
For more information, visit www.prisma-statement.org.
Table 2.
Summary of the studies included in the systematic review.
Fig 2.
Summary of the risk of bias assessment.
From Aurelio IL, Marchionatti AM, Montagner AF, May LG, Soares FZ. Does air particle abrasion affect the flexural strength and phase transformation of Y-TZP? A systematic review and meta-analysis. [6].
Table 3.
Risks of bias of the studies evaluating mechanical properties.
Fig 3.
Forest plot of flexural strength.
Flexural strength. Dimethacrylate vs. monomethacrylate groups (Fig 3A), Flexural strength. Bis-acryl vs. PMMA (Fig 3B), Flexural strength. Bis-acryl vs. PEMA (Fig 3C), Flexural strength. PMMA vs. PEMA (Fig 3D).
Fig 4.
Forest plot of fracture toughness.
Dimethacrylate vs. monomethacrylategroups (Fig 4A), Bis-acryl vs. PEMA (Fig 4B).
Fig 5.
Forest plot of Knoop hardness.
Dimethacrylate vs. monomethacrylate groups (Fig 5A), Bis-acryl vs. PMMA (Fig 5B).