Findings

What do systematic reviews say?

2 questions · 2 findings · 2 reviews

Sort:Best matchNewest Highest certainty Download CSV

No studies found 1 · 50%GRADE not reported 1 · 50%Very low 0 · 0%Low 0 · 0%Moderate 0 · 0%High 0 · 0%

Composite resin vs Amalgam restoration

Restoration failure · Permanent posterior teeth (molars/premolars) receiving direct restoration

There was no statistically significant difference in failure risk between composite resin and amalgam restorations in permanent posterior teeth (pooled RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.34; 13 studies; not GRADE-rated, with very high heterogeneity, I2 = 97%).

1 finding from 1 review

Failure Risk of Composite Resin and Amalgam Restorations: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. 2025 All outcomes
At least 12 months follow-up (included studies followed 24 to 144 months) · Permanent posterior teeth; clinical/practice settings across multiple countries (not clearly specified)
RR 0.96 [0.68, 1.34]
13 studies
GRADE not reported

Resin composite restorations containing antibacterial agents vs Non-antibacterial containing composite restorations

Costs (direct costs of interventions) · Adults and adolescents in any age group with restorations in the permanent dentition and children with restorations in the primary dentition

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Antibacterial agents in composite restorations for the prevention of dental caries 2013 · Cochrane All outcomes
No studies were included in this review, as we were unable to find any trials directly comparing antibacterial containing composites to other active interventions or controls.
0 studies
No studies found