Direct composite resin restoration vs Amalgam restoration: Fracture of restorations
Direct composite resin restoration showed no clear difference in fracture of restorations compared with amalgam restoration (low certainty).
What each review found
Include earlier review versions| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Direct composite resin restoration vs Amalgam restoration Fracture of restorations · People with permanent or adult posterior teeth requiring restoration (parallel-group trials involved children aged 6… · Follow-up: 5 to 7 years Direct composite resin restoration showed no clear difference in fracture of restorations compared with amalgam restoration (low certainty). Direct composite resin fillings versus amalgam fillings for permanent posterior teeth (2021) · Cochrane All outcomes | RR 0.87 [0.46, 1.64] | 2 studies · 921 participants | 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 | 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.