ArticleEvidence-based dentistry2009
No available evidence to assess the effectiveness of bonded amalgams.
Article in Evidence-based dentistry, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Does magnetic resonance imaging affect the microleakage of amalgam restorations?Iranian journal of radiology : a quarterly journal published by the Iranian Radiological Society · 2014Article
Corrections and comments
- Comment on
Authors and funding
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
data sourcesSources of data were the Cochrane Oral Health Group's Trials Register, Cochrane CENTRAL (Cochrane Library), Medline and Embase. Reference lists of relevant articles were also searched and the investigators of the included studies were contacted for details of additional published and unpublished trials. STUDY SELECTION: Randomised controlled trials (RCT) were chosen that compared adhesively bonded versus traditional nonbonded amalgam restorations in conventional preparations utilising deliberate retention, in adults with permanent molar and premolar teeth suitable for Class I and II amalgam restorations only. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Two review authors independently screened papers, extracted trial details and assessed the risk of bias in the included study.
resultsOne trial was included, comprising 31 patients who received 113 restorations. At 2 years, only three out of 53 restorations in the nonbonded group were lost, which was attributed to a lack of retention, and 55 out of 60 bonded restorations survived, with five unaccounted for at followup. Postinsertion sensitivity was not significantly different (P >0.05) at baseline or 2-year followup. No fractures of tooth tissue were reported and there was no significant difference between the groups or matched pairs of restorations in their marginal adaptation (P >0.05).
conclusionsThere is no evidence to either claim or refute a difference in survival between bonded and nonbonded amalgam restorations. This review only found one methodologically sound but somewhat under-reported trial. This trial did not find any significant difference in the in-service performance of moderately sized adhesively bonded amalgam restorations, in terms of their survival rate and marginal integrity, in comparison with nonbonded amalgam restorations over a 2-year period. In view of the lack of evidence on the additional benefit of adhesively bonding amalgam compared with with nonbonded amalgam, it is important that clinicians are mindful of the additional costs that may be incurred.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.