Findings

What do systematic reviews say?

5 questions · 8 findings · 4 reviews

Sort:Best matchNewest Highest certainty Download CSV

No studies found 0 · 0%GRADE not reported 6 · 75%Very low 0 · 0%Low 2 · 25%Moderate 0 · 0%High 0 · 0%

Direct composite resin restoration vs Amalgam restoration

Restoration failure · People with permanent or adult posterior teeth requiring restoration (parallel-group trials involved children aged 6 to 12 years)

Direct composite resin restoration may leads to higher restoration failure rate compared with amalgam restoration (low certainty).

3 findings from 1 review

Direct composite resin fillings versus amalgam fillings for permanent posterior teeth 2021 · Cochrane All outcomes
Follow-up: 5 to 7 years
RR 1.89 [1.52, 2.35]
2 studies · 921 participants
Low
Direct composite resin fillings versus amalgam fillings for permanent posterior teeth 2021 · Cochrane All outcomes
Follow-up >= 3 years · Parallel-group and split-mouth trials combined
RR 1.65 [1.13, 2.40]
8 studies
GRADE not reported
Direct composite resin fillings versus amalgam fillings for permanent posterior teeth 2021 · Cochrane All outcomes
Follow-up >= 3 years · Split-mouth trials
RR 1.33 [0.84, 2.11]
6 studies
GRADE not reported

Dental cavity liner (e.g. calcium hydroxide, glass ionomer, resin-modified glass ionomer, or flowable composite) placed under the restoration vs No liner (resin-based composite bonded directly to the tooth)

Restoration failure · Adults or children with a Class I or Class II resin-based composite restoration in a permanent posterior tooth

2 findings from 1 review

Dental cavity liners for Class I and Class II resin‐based composite restorations 2019 · Cochrane All outcomes
2 years
Three studies evaluated restoration longevity at 2 years follow-up; no failures were shown in either group (effect not estimable).
3 studies
GRADE not reported
Dental cavity liners for Class I and Class II resin‐based composite restorations 2019 · Cochrane All outcomes
1 year
RR 1.00 [0.07, 15.00]
4 studies
Low

Direct resin composite veneer vs Indirect resin composite veneer

Restoration failure · Patients with permanent anterior teeth with intrinsic staining suitable for laminate veneer restorations

1 finding from 1 review

Direct versus indirect veneer restorations for intrinsic dental stains 2004 · Cochrane All outcomes
2 years
Meijering 1998 (data by restoration, not pooled; no statistical analysis possible). Failures over 2-year follow-up: direct resin composite (n=69) 4 absolute and 14 relative failures; indirect resin composite (n=54) 7…
1 study · 123 participants
GRADE not reported

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

Direct resin composite veneer vs Porcelain (indirect) veneer

Restoration failure · Patients with permanent anterior teeth with intrinsic staining suitable for laminate veneer restorations

1 finding from 1 review

Direct versus indirect veneer restorations for intrinsic dental stains 2004 · Cochrane All outcomes
2 years
Meijering 1998 (data by restoration, not pooled; no statistical analysis possible). Failures over 2-year follow-up: direct resin composite (n=69) 4 absolute and 14 relative failures; porcelain (n=56) 0 absolute and 3…
1 study · 125 participants
GRADE not reported