Presence of clinical symptoms (pain, swelling, diagnosis of pulpitis, abscess formation) · Adults (16 years or over) with one or more defective amalgam restoration(s) in a molar or premolar tooth/teeth
The review found no eligible studies for this question.
1 finding from 1 review
Patient satisfaction (measured by patient satisfaction or aesthetic scales) · Adults (16 years or over) with one or more defective amalgam restoration(s) in a molar or premolar tooth/teeth
The review found no eligible studies for this question.
1 finding from 1 review
Perioperative or postoperative pain or discomfort · Adults (16 years or over) with one or more defective amalgam restoration(s) in a molar or premolar tooth/teeth
The review found no eligible studies for this question.
1 finding from 1 review
Success or failure of restoration (as defined by the USPHS criteria) · Adults (16 years or over) with one or more defective amalgam restoration(s) in a molar or premolar tooth/teeth
The review found no eligible studies for this question.
1 finding from 1 review
Extraction of tooth (due to decay) · Adults (16 years or over) with one or more defective amalgam restoration(s) in a molar or premolar tooth/teeth
The review found no eligible studies for this question.
1 finding from 1 review
Adverse events · Adults (16 years or over) with one or more defective amalgam restoration(s) in a molar or premolar tooth/teeth
The review found no eligible studies for this question.
1 finding from 1 review
Further restoration required (repair, restoration, placement of crown/inlay, root filling) · Adults (16 years or over) with one or more defective amalgam restoration(s) in a molar or premolar tooth/teeth
The review found no eligible studies for this question.
1 finding from 1 review
Marginal deterioration of the restoration and fracture of the remaining tooth tissue · Adults and adolescents with permanent posterior molar and premolar teeth suitable for Class I and II, but excluding Class V, amalgam…
1 finding from 1 review
Marginal deterioration of the restoration and fracture of the remaining tooth tissue - Follow‐up: mean 24 months | Study population | Relative effect (95% CI): Not estimable | Number of participants (studies): 31 (1…
1 study · 31 participants
Low
Restoration survival · Adults and adolescents with permanent posterior molar and premolar teeth suitable for Class I and II, but excluding Class V, amalgam…
1 finding from 1 review
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
Economic data: direct costs of materials and any reported associated indirect costs · Adults and adolescents with permanent posterior molar and premolar teeth suitable for Class I and II, but excluding Class V, amalgam…
The review found no eligible studies for this question.
1 finding from 1 review
Adverse effects · Adults and adolescents with permanent posterior molar and premolar teeth suitable for Class I and II, but excluding Class V, amalgam…
The review found no eligible studies for this question.
1 finding from 1 review
Secondary caries · Adults and adolescents with permanent posterior molar and premolar teeth suitable for Class I and II, but excluding Class V, amalgam…
The review found no eligible studies for this question.
1 finding from 1 review
Post‐insertion sensitivity or pain assessed by a validated pain scale · Adults and adolescents with permanent posterior molar and premolar teeth suitable for Class I and II, but excluding Class V, amalgam…
1 finding from 1 review
Post‐insertion sensitivity or pain assessed by a validated pain scale - not measured | See comment | See comment | Not estimable | - | See comment | No study addressed this outcome
1 study · 31 participants
GRADE not reported
Treatment failure (annual failure rate) · Children with carious primary molars treated by pulpotomy (vital pulp therapy)
Preformed metal crowns had a low annual failure rate (2.4%) in primary molars after pulpotomy, lower than amalgam in the same trial (single high-risk-of-bias RCT; low quality of evidence; not GRADE-rated).
2 findings from 1 review
A permanent restorative material or technique (e.g. amalgam; glass ionomer (type I-IV); composite resin (macrofilled, microfilled, hybrid, nanofilled); resin-modified glass ionomer (compomer, giomer); cement/cermet; stainless steel or nickel-chrome crown; pre-fabricated resin/porcelain veneer facing; microabrasion) vs A different permanent restorative material or technique
Outcome not reported · Children and adolescents under 18 years with amelogenesis imperfecta requiring restorative care of anterior teeth, irrespective of…
The review found no eligible studies for this question.
1 finding from 1 review
A permanent restorative material or technique (e.g. amalgam; glass ionomer (type I-IV); composite resin (macrofilled, microfilled, hybrid, nanofilled); resin-modified glass ionomer (compomer, giomer); cement/cermet; stainless steel or nickel-chrome crown; pre-fabricated resin/porcelain veneer facing; microabrasion) vs A different permanent restorative material or technique
Outcome not reported · Children and adolescents under 18 years with amelogenesis imperfecta requiring restorative care of posterior teeth, irrespective of…
The review found no eligible studies for this question.
1 finding from 1 review
Treatment failure (annual failure rate) · Children with previously unrestored, vital carious lesions in primary teeth (no pulp therapy); aged 1.5-11 years
Amalgam restorations in primary teeth showed a wide annual failure rate (1-28%) across 4 RCTs; the evidence is of low quality (high risk of bias; ungraded).
1 finding from 1 review