Amalgam and resin composite longevity of posterior restorations: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Abstract
Objectives
The
aim of the present review was to evaluate by means of a systematic
review and meta-analysis the hypothesis of no difference in failure
rates between amalgam and composite resin posterior restorations.
Data
Randomized
controlled trials, controlled clinical trials and prospective and
retrospective cohort studies were included in this review. The
eligibility criteria included clinical trials in humans with at least 12
months of follow-up comparing the failures rates between occlusal and
occlusoproximal amalgam and composite resin restorations. Clinical
questions were formulated and organized according to the PICOS strategy.
Source
An
electronic search without restriction on the dates or languages was
performed in PubMed/MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled
Trials, and Web of Science up until March 2015.
Study selection
The
initial search resulted in 938 articles from PubMed/MEDLINE, 89 titles
from the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and 172 from
the Web of Science. After an initial assessment and careful reading, 8
studies published between 1992 and 2013 were included in this review.
According to the risk of bias evaluation, all studies were classified as
high quality.
Conclusions
The
results of this review suggest that composite resin restorations in
posterior teeth still have less longevity and a higher number of
secondary caries when compared to amalgam restorations. In relation to
fractures, there was no statistically significant difference between the
two restorative materials regarding the time of follow-up.
Clinical significance
There
is currently a worldwide trend towards replacing amalgam restorations
with mercury-free materials, which are adhesive and promote aesthetics.
It is important to perform an updated periodic review to synthesize the
clinical performance of restorations in the long-term.
Comments