ArticleDentistry journal2023
Five-Year Clinical Performance of Complex Class II Resin Composite and Amalgam Restorations-A Retrospective Study.
Article in Dentistry journal, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 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
13 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- Clinical Performance of Bulk-Fill Versus Incremental Composite Placement Approaches in Vital Posterior Teeth: A 24 Months Randomized Controlled Trial.Journal of esthetic and restorative dentistry : official publication of the American Academy of Esthetic Dentistry ... [et al.] · 2026Trial
- Microstructural characterization of enamel at different walls of Class II cavities.BMC oral health · 2026Article
- Newly developed universal supra-nano spherical filled resin composite in posterior teeth.Journal of conservative dentistry and endodontics · 2026Article
- Short-term clinical success of posterior amalgam and composite restorations in public dental care: a multicenter retrospective study.BMC oral health · 2026Article
- A Narrative Review of the Material Properties, Clinical Efficacy, and Developmental Prospects of Bulk-Fill Resin-Based Composites.Clinical, cosmetic and investigational dentistry · 2026Review
- Evaluation of Preclinical Class II Composite Restoration Performed by Dental Students Using Analytic Rubric Parameters.Advances in medical education and practice · 2026Article
- Tribology of dental materials: from laboratory metrics to clinical durability: review and translational roadmap.Frontiers in oral health · 2026Review
- Article
- Use of Amalgam and Composite Restorations Among 12-Year-Old Children in Israel: A Retrospective Study.Biomimetics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Results from a five-year clinical assessment of undergraduate-performed direct composite restorations.The Saudi dental journal · 2025Article
- Longevity of Amalgam Versus Composite Resin Restorations in Permanent Posterior Teeth: A Systematic Review.Cureus · 2025Review
- Students' performance in clinical class II composite restorations: a case study using analytic rubrics.BMC medical education · 2024Article
- A Finite Element Method Study of Stress Distribution in Dental Hard Tissues: Impact of Access Cavity Design and Restoration Material.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The aim of this retrospective study was to investigate the clinical performance of posterior complex resin composite (RC) and amalgam (AM) restorations after a five-year period. One hundred and nineteen complex Class II restorations placed by dental students were evaluated using the USPHS criteria. Data were analyzed using Chi-square, Mann-Whitney, and Wilcoxon tests at a 0.05 level of significance. After five years, the percentages of clinically satisfactory complex Class II RC and AM restorations were 78% and 76.8%, respectively. The main reasons for the failure of AM restorations included secondary caries (Bravo-10.1%), defective marginal adaptation (Charlie-8.7%), and fracture of the tooth (Bravo-7.2%). RC restorations presented failures related to the fracture of the restoration (Bravo-16%) and defective marginal adaptation (Charlie-8.2%). There was a significantly higher incidence of secondary caries for AM restorations (AM-10.1%; RC-0%;
Indexed as
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.