Cochrane · intervention · CD007517
Adhesively bonded versus non‐bonded amalgam restorations for dental caries
Agnihotry, A, Fedorowicz, Z, Nasser, M · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2016 · Cochrane Library
Full textEvery question was extracted from the full review (methods and results), not only its Summary of Findings table.
Questions
6
current version
GRADE rated
2
No studies
3
Included studies
1
as reported
No studies 3 · 50%Ungraded 1 · 16.7%Very low 0 · 0%Low 2 · 33.3%Moderate 0 · 0%High 0 · 0%
Ungraded means an effect was reported without a GRADE rating; it is not a gap. No studies means the review found nothing to answer the question. The six categories are a display order, not a score.
Review question
| Element | Planned (methods) | Found (results) |
|---|---|---|
| Population | Adults and adolescents with permanent posterior molar and premolar teeth suitable for Class I and II, but excluding Class V, amalgam restorations | 31 participants (21 male, 10 female; 35 matched pairs of teeth) with 113 Class II amalgam restorations, followed up for 2 years |
| Intervention | Adhesively bonded amalgam restorations in conventional preparations utilising deliberate retention. All types of bonding agents were considered | Adhesively bonded amalgam restorations (Panavia 21TC with ED primer) (n=60) |
| Comparison | Traditional non‐bonded amalgam restorations | Non‐bonded amalgam restorations (n=53) |
| Outcomes | Primary: Survival of the restoration (longevity/survival to defined time points yearly up to a maximum of 10 years). Secondary: Post‐insertion sensitivity or pain assessed by a validated pain scale; Secondary caries, as diagnosed clinically; Marginal deterioration of the restoration and fracture of the remaining tooth tissue; Economic data: direct costs of materials and any reported associated indirect costs; Adverse effects: any specific adverse effects related to any clinically diagnosed reactions | Survival of restoration (n=113); Post‐insertion sensitivity (USPHS; n=113); Secondary caries (no data); Marginal deterioration / marginal adaptation (USPHS Alpha; n=113); Fracture of remaining tooth tissue (none reported); Economic data (no data); Adverse effects (none reported) |
| Study designs | Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) to include paired tooth and split‐mouth designs, with a minimum length of follow‐up of 2 years; unit of randomisation at the level of the tooth or the individual patient. Only studies assessing in‐service performance and longevity using clearly defined criteria (e.g. USPHS or recognised modifications) | 1 split‐mouth RCT (Setcos 1999), assessed at unclear risk of bias |
| Timing | Minimum length of follow‐up of 2 years; outcome data categorised at time‐points 1, 2, 5 and 10 years | 2 years (baseline and 24‐month follow‐up) |
Search date: 2016-01. Databases: Cochrane Oral Health Group Trials Register; Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); MEDLINE via Ovid (1946 to 21 January 2016); EMBASE via Ovid (1980 to 21 January 2016); US National Institutes of Health Trials Registry (ClinicalTrials.gov); WHO International Clinical Trials…
Questions and results
Show all 3 versionsAdhesively bonded amalgam restorations in conventional preparations utilising deliberate retention (all bonding agents) vs Traditional non‐bonded amalgam restorations
Population: Adults and adolescents with permanent posterior molar and premolar teeth suitable for Class I and II, but excluding Class V, amalgam restorations
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Survival of the restoration Mean 24 months | Survival of the restoration - Follow‐up: mean 24 months | Illustrative comparative risks: Assumed risk (Control) See comment; Corresponding risk (Adhesive bonding) See comment | Relative effect (95% CI): Not estimable… | 1 study · 31 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Marginal deterioration of the restoration and fracture of the remaining tooth tissue Mean 24 months | Marginal deterioration of the restoration and fracture of the remaining tooth tissue - Follow‐up: mean 24 months | Study population | Relative effect (95% CI): Not estimable | Number of participants (studies): 31 (1… | 1 study · 31 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Economic data: direct costs of materials and any reported associated indirect costs | Economic data: direct costs of materials and any reported associated indirect costs - not measured | See comment | See comment | Not estimable | - | See comment | No study addressed this outcome | 0 studies | No studies |
Adverse effects | Adverse effects: any event for which the causal relationship between the event and the amalgam restoration is at least a reasonable possibility - not measured | See comment | See comment | Not estimable | - | See… | 0 studies | No studies |
Secondary caries, as diagnosed clinically | Secondary caries, as diagnosed clinically - not measured | See comment | See comment | Not estimable | - | See comment | No study addressed this outcome | 0 studies | No studies |
Post‐insertion sensitivity or pain assessed by a validated pain scale Baseline and 24 months | Post‐insertion sensitivity or pain assessed by a validated pain scale - not measured | See comment | See comment | Not estimable | - | See comment | No study addressed this outcome | 1 study · 31 participants | Ungraded |