Adhesively bonded amalgam restorations in conventional preparations utilising deliberate retention (all bonding agents) vs Amalgam restoration: Restoration survival
The review found no eligible studies for this question.
What each review found
Current versions only| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Adhesively bonded amalgam restorations in conventional preparations utilising deliberate retention (all bonding agents) vs Traditional non‐bonded amalgam restorations Survival of the restoration · Adults and adolescents with permanent posterior molar and premolar teeth suitable for Class I and II, but excluding… · Mean 24 months Adhesively bonded versus non‐bonded amalgam restorations for dental caries (2016) · Cochrane All outcomes | Survival of the restoration - Follow‐up: mean 24 months | Illustrative comparative risks: Assumed risk (Control) See comment; Corresponding risk (Adhesive bonding) See comment | Relative effect (95% CI): Not estimable… | 1 study · 31 participants | Low |
Adhesively bonded amalgam restorations in conventional preparations utilising deliberate retention (all bonding agents) vs Traditional non‐bonded amalgam restorations Survival of the restoration · Adults and adolescents with permanent posterior molar and premolar teeth suitable for Class I and II, but excluding… The review found no eligible studies for this question. Adhesively bonded versus non‐bonded amalgam restorations for dental caries (2009) · Cochrane All outcomesearlier version CD007517, superseded | no estimate extracted | 0 studies | No studies found |
Adhesively bonded amalgam restorations in conventional preparations utilising deliberate retention (all bonding agents) vs Traditional non‐bonded amalgam restorations Survival of the restoration · Adults and adolescents with permanent posterior molar and premolar teeth suitable for Class I and II, but excluding… · Mean 24 months Adhesively bonded versus non‐bonded amalgam restorations for dental caries (2009) · Cochrane All outcomesearlier version CD007517.PUB2, superseded | At 2 years, 3 of 53 non‐bonded restorations were lost (attributed to lack of retention) and 55 of 60 bonded restorations survived (5 unaccounted for at 24‐month follow‐up); 105/113 (93%) restorations assessed; failures… | 1 study · 31 participants | GRADE not reported |
Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.
The reviews
| Review | Searched up to | Included studies | AMSTAR 2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Adhesively bonded versus non‐bonded amalgam restorations for dental caries 2016 · Cochrane All outcomes | 2016-01 | list not extracted yet | Not assessed |
Studies behind the findings
None of these reviews ties its included studies to this outcome in the data here. Cochrane reviews and reviews with headline outcomes only do not list their studies yet.
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.