Findings

What do systematic reviews say?

10 questions · 10 findings · 9 reviews · Oral Health

Sort:Best matchNewest Highest certainty Download CSV

No studies found 5 · 50%GRADE not reported 4 · 40%Very low 0 · 0%Low 0 · 0%Moderate 1 · 10%High 0 · 0%

Repair of a defective amalgam restoration in a permanent molar or premolar tooth (with amalgam) vs Replacement of a defective amalgam restoration in a permanent molar or premolar tooth (with amalgam)

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

Replacement versus repair of defective restorations in adults: amalgam 2014 · Cochrane All outcomes
Medium term (less than 5 years) or long term (5 years and above)
No randomised controlled trials were found
0 studies
No studies found

Repair of a defective resin composite restoration in a permanent molar or premolar tooth (with resin composite) vs Replacement of a defective resin composite restoration in a permanent molar or premolar tooth (with resin composite)

Success or failure of restoration (as defined by the USPHS criteria) · Adults (16 years or over) with one or more defective resin composite restoration(s) in a molar or premolar tooth/teeth

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Replacement versus repair of defective restorations in adults: resin composite 2014 · Cochrane All outcomes
Medium term (less than 5 years) or long term (5 years and above)
No randomised controlled trials were found
0 studies
No studies found

Preformed metal crown (PMC) vs Resin-modified glass-ionomer cement + composite resin (modified open-sandwich restoration)

Restoration failure · Children with carious primary teeth after vital or non-vital pulp therapy

In one RCT, preformed metal crowns had an annual failure rate of 2.5% after 2 years.

1 finding from 1 review

Clinical effectiveness of restorative materials for the restoration of carious lesions in pulp treated primary teeth:… 2022 All outcomes
2 years · General dental practice, Saudi Arabia
Annual failure rate (AFR, %) 2.5
1 study · 87 participants
GRADE not reported

Hall technique vs Compomer restoration or non-restorative caries treatment

Restoration failure · Children with carious primary teeth

No comparative effect estimate was reported; the review reports this three-arm comparison but tabulates only compomer failure.

1 finding from 1 review

Clinical effectiveness of restorative materials for the restoration of carious primary teeth without pulp therapy: a… 2022 All outcomes
2.5 years · University · Class II
Annual failure rate (%) PMC Hall technique 3.1%; compomer 14.7%
1 study · 169 participants
GRADE not reported

Hall technique vs Conventional restoration

Restoration failure · Children (3-10 years) with dentine caries in primary molars

The Hall Technique was reported to reduce restoration and major failure versus conventional restorations (3% vs 37%; ungraded).

1 finding from 1 review

Minimal intervention dentistry for managing carious lesions into dentine in primary teeth: an umbrella review. 2022 All outcomes
1-5 years
3% (HT) vs 37% (control)
1 study
GRADE not reported

Hall technique vs Non-restorative caries treatment

Time to restoration failure/retreatment · Children with decayed primary molar teeth

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Preformed crowns for decayed primary molar teeth 2015 · Cochrane All outcomes
The studies did not measure this outcome.
0 studies
No studies found

Preformed crown (any material; conventional technique or Hall Technique) vs Filling (any material; with or without complete carious tissue excavation; with or without pulp treatment)

Time to restoration failure/retreatment · Children with decayed primary molar teeth

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Preformed crowns for decayed primary molar teeth 2015 · Cochrane All outcomes
The studies did not measure this outcome.
0 studies
No studies found

No dentinal caries removal (caries sealed under a preformed metal crown or restoration without removing dentinal caries) vs Complete caries removal

Restoration failure · Patients with carious teeth, affecting any tooth surface(s), in unrestored primary and permanent teeth

No dentinal caries removal (caries sealed under a preformed metal… probably leads to lower failure of restorations compared with complete caries removal (moderate certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Operative caries management in adults and children 2013 · Cochrane All outcomes
1 year (2-year and 5-year data also available for Innes 2007)
RR 0.08 [0.02, 0.26]
1 study · 132 participants
Moderate

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

Restoration survival · 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