Question · asked by 1 review
Direct composite resin restoration vs Amalgam restoration: Harms (toxicity and postoperative sensitivity)
- Population
- People with permanent or adult posterior teeth requiring restoration (parallel-group trials involved children aged 6 to 12 years)
- Intervention
- Direct composite resin restoration
- Comparison
- Amalgam restoration
- Outcome
- Harms (toxicity and postoperative sensitivity)
What each review found
Current versions only| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Direct composite resin restoration vs Amalgam restoration Harms (toxicity and postoperative sensitivity) · People with permanent or adult posterior teeth requiring restoration (parallel-group trials involved children aged 6… · Follow-up: 2 weeks to 7 years Direct composite resin fillings versus amalgam fillings for permanent posterior teeth (2021) · Cochrane All outcomes | SoF (Harms, follow-up 2 weeks to 7 years): See comments; 3 studies; certainty very low (⊕⊝⊝⊝). Comments: data were reported for physical development, neurological and psychological effects, neurobehavioural and… | 3 studies | Very low |
Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.
The reviews
| Review | Searched up to | Included studies | AMSTAR 2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Direct composite resin fillings versus amalgam fillings for permanent posterior teeth 2021 · Cochrane All outcomes | 2021-02 | Not listed | Not assessed |
How reviews are matched to this question
Reviews word the same question differently. Four decision models (TypeSafe's Jev, Liquid AI's d1-ultra, SubQ Snap and Baseten's Elephant) judged each wording of the population, intervention, comparator and outcome against the others; two wordings count as the same when at least three of them agree and none clearly disagrees, and findings count as this question only when all four elements match. Timing, setting and subgroup never split a question: they are shown on each finding.