Question · asked by 1 review
Direct composite resin restoration vs Amalgam restoration: Restoration failure
- 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
- Restoration failure
Direct composite resin restoration may leads to higher restoration failure rate compared with amalgam restoration (low certainty).
What each review found
Current versions onlyNo studies found 0 · 0%GRADE not reported 4 · 66.7%Very low 0 · 0%Low 2 · 33.3%Moderate 0 · 0%High 0 · 0%
| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Direct composite resin restoration vs Amalgam restoration Restoration failure rate · 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 may leads to higher restoration failure rate compared with amalgam restoration (low certainty). Direct composite resin fillings versus amalgam fillings for permanent posterior teeth (2021) · Cochrane All outcomes | RR 1.89 [1.52, 2.35] | 2 studies · 921 participants | Low |
Direct composite resin restoration vs Amalgam restoration Restoration failure rate · People with permanent or adult posterior teeth requiring restoration (parallel-group trials involved children aged 6… · Follow-up >= 3 years, Parallel-group and split-mouth trials combined Direct composite resin restoration led to higher restoration failure rate compared with amalgam restoration; GRADE not reported. Direct composite resin fillings versus amalgam fillings for permanent posterior teeth (2021) · Cochrane All outcomes | RR 1.65 [1.13, 2.40] | 8 studies | GRADE not reported |
Direct composite resin restoration vs Amalgam restoration Restoration failure rate · People with permanent or adult posterior teeth requiring restoration (parallel-group trials involved children aged 6… · Follow-up >= 3 years, Split-mouth trials Direct composite resin restoration showed no clear difference in restoration failure rate compared with amalgam restoration; GRADE not reported. Direct composite resin fillings versus amalgam fillings for permanent posterior teeth (2021) · Cochrane All outcomes | RR 1.33 [0.84, 2.11] | 6 studies | GRADE not reported |
Direct composite resin restoration vs Amalgam restoration Restoration failure rate · People with permanent or adult posterior teeth requiring restoration (parallel-group trials involved children aged 6… · Follow-up >= 3 years, Split-mouth trials Direct composite resin restoration showed no clear difference in restoration failure rate compared with amalgam restoration; GRADE not reported. Direct composite resin fillings versus amalgam fillings for permanent posterior teeth (2014) · Cochrane All outcomesearlier version CD005620.PUB2, superseded | RR 1.33 [0.84, 2.11] | 5 studies | GRADE not reported |
Direct composite resin restoration vs Amalgam restoration Restoration failure rate · People with permanent or adult posterior teeth requiring restoration (parallel-group trials involved children aged 6… · Follow-up >= 3 years, Parallel-group and split-mouth trials combined Direct composite resin restoration led to higher restoration failure rate compared with amalgam restoration; GRADE not reported. Direct composite resin fillings versus amalgam fillings for permanent posterior teeth (2014) · Cochrane All outcomesearlier version CD005620.PUB2, superseded | RR 1.62 [1.13, 2.4] | 7 studies | GRADE not reported |
Direct composite resin restoration vs Amalgam restoration Restoration failure rate · 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 may leads to higher restoration failure rate compared with amalgam restoration (low certainty). Direct composite resin fillings versus amalgam fillings for permanent posterior teeth (2014) · Cochrane All outcomesearlier version CD005620.PUB2, superseded | RR 1.89 [1.52, 2.35] | 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 | 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.