SynthesisClinical oral investigations2022
Risk of failure of repaired versus replaced defective direct restorations in permanent teeth: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Clinical oral investigations, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- De-Implementing Low-Value Care in Dentistry: The Case for Choosing Wisely Campaigns.Community dentistry and oral epidemiology · 2026Article
- Article
- Review
- Effect of Different Working Settings of Sandblasting on Resin Composite Repair Bond Strength.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Silane and acid etch cross contamination of dentin and composite reduced µ-tensile bond strength.Biomaterial investigations in dentistry · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThis study aimed to systematically review the literature to compare the risk of failure of repaired and replaced defective direct resin composite and amalgam restorations performed in permanent teeth. MATERIALS AND
methodsThe PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, Lilacs, BBO, Web of Science, SciELO, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) databases, and gray literature were searched to identify longitudinal clinical studies related to the research question. No publication year or language restriction was considered. Two authors independently selected the studies, extracted the data, and assessed the risk of bias and certainty of evidence. A meta-analysis was performed using a fixed effects model at a 5% significance level.
resultsFrom 1224 potentially eligible studies, thirteen were selected for full-text analysis, and three were included in the systematic review and meta-analysis. There was no difference in the risk of failure of repaired and replaced defective direct restorations (RR: 1.21, 95% CI: 0.51-2.83), either for resin composite (p = 0.97) or amalgam (p = 0.51) restorations. The risk of bias was high and the certainty of evidence was very low.
conclusionBased on the very low certainty of evidence, the repair of direct restorations does not present a significant difference in the risk of failure when compared to replacements in permanent teeth. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Restoration repair is a procedure that is included in the minimal intervention principle for improvement of tooth longevity in that the risk of failure of repaired partially defective restorations in permanent teeth seems similar to that of replacement. Further studies are required before definitive conclusions can be drawn.
Indexed as
Identifiers
35362754What 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.