Findings

What do systematic reviews say?

Refine by population, intervention, comparison or outcome
More filters
Evidence found and GRADE certainty

4 questions · 7 findings · 3 reviews

No studies found 0 · 0%GRADE not reported 5 · 71.4%Very low 0 · 0%Low 2 · 28.6%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

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

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
  • 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

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
  • 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