Findings

What do systematic reviews say?

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

23 questions · 32 findings · 5 reviews

No studies found 9 · 28.1%GRADE not reported 16 · 50%Very low 1 · 3.1%Low 6 · 18.8%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 restoration vs Amalgam restoration

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

Direct composite resin restoration showed no clear difference in fracture of restorations compared with amalgam restoration (low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Direct composite resin restoration vs Amalgam restoration

Harms (toxicity and postoperative sensitivity) · People with permanent or adult posterior teeth requiring restoration (parallel-group trials involved children aged 6 to 12 years)
1 finding from 1 review

Direct composite resin restoration vs Amalgam restoration

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

Direct composite resin restoration showed no clear difference in secondary caries compared with amalgam restoration; GRADE not reported.

3 findings from 1 review

Direct composite resin restoration vs Amalgam restoration

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

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Direct composite resin restoration vs Amalgam restoration

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

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding 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

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)

Postoperative hypersensitivity (POH), patient-reported (dichotomous yes/no) · Adults or children with a Class I or Class II resin-based composite restoration in a permanent posterior tooth

Dental cavity liner (e.g. calcium hydroxide, glass ionomer,… showed no clear difference in postoperative hypersensitivity (POH), patient-reported (dichotomous… compared with no liner (resin-based composite bonded directly to the tooth) (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)

Postoperative hypersensitivity (POH), cold response measurement (time in seconds) · Adults or children with a Class I or Class II resin-based composite restoration in a permanent posterior tooth

Dental cavity liner (e.g. calcium hydroxide, glass ionomer,… may leads to higher postoperative hypersensitivity (POH), cold response measurement… compared with no liner (resin-based composite bonded directly to the tooth) (low certainty).

1 finding 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)

Cost of materials · Adults or children with a Class I or Class II resin-based composite restoration in a permanent posterior tooth
1 finding 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)

Postoperative hypersensitivity (POH), cold response measurement (VAS score) · Adults or children with a Class I or Class II resin-based composite restoration in a permanent posterior tooth

Dental cavity liner (e.g. calcium hydroxide, glass ionomer,… showed no clear difference in postoperative hypersensitivity (POH), cold response measurement (VAS… compared with no liner (resin-based composite bonded directly to the tooth); GRADE not reported.

2 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)

Postoperative hypersensitivity (POH), patient-reported (VAS score) · Adults or children with a Class I or Class II resin-based composite restoration in a permanent posterior tooth

Dental cavity liner (e.g. calcium hydroxide, glass ionomer,… led to lower postoperative hypersensitivity (POH), patient-reported (VAS score) compared with no liner (resin-based composite bonded directly to the tooth); GRADE not reported.

2 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)

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

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Direct resin composite veneer vs Indirect resin composite veneer

Pain following treatment · Patients with permanent anterior teeth with intrinsic staining suitable for laminate veneer restorations

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

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

Direct resin composite veneer vs Indirect resin composite veneer

Colour match (aesthetic achievement) · Patients with permanent anterior teeth with intrinsic staining suitable for laminate veneer restorations

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review