ArticleJournal of pharmacy & bioallied sciences2024
Assessment of Prevalence and Causative Factors for Replacement of Composite and Amalgam Restorations: An Observational Study.
Article in Journal of pharmacy & bioallied sciences, 2024. 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.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Aim: This study intends to evaluate the frequency and causes of replacement for failed amalgam and composite dental restorations. Methodology: A cross-sectional study comprising female patients with failed permanent composite and amalgam restorations aged 15-60 years old was carried out at the dental clinics of Qassim University. Using a self-structured proforma, demographic data and causes for restoration failure were recorded. The effectiveness of the restorations was assessed by using the Ryge criteria after performing clinical and radiographic examinations. The Statistical Package for Social Science was used for the statistical analysis. Results: It is found that 84.6% of the 299 unsuccessful restorations examined were composite, and 15.4% were amalgam. The main reason for dental failure for both amalgam (95.6%) and composite (93.28%) restorations was secondary caries. Failure of amalgam restoration was largely caused by poor marginal adaptation. With varied incidences between amalgam and composite restorations, typical complaints included discomfort, sensitivity, pain, and food impaction with soreness. The main justification for replacement in amalgam restorations was sensitivity. Repair and replacement rates were similar for amalgam, composite, and mandibular/maxillary restorations. Moreover, 21.1% of individuals overall reported no symptoms, with 8.7% in the amalgam group and 23.3% in the composite group with significant differences ( Conclusion: According to the current study, secondary caries was found to be the main reason for both amalgam and composite restoration failure. The main problems reported were sensitivity, discomfort, and pain with amalgam showing more sensitivity-related failures.
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.