ReviewCureus2025
Longevity of Repair Versus Replacement of Partially Fractured Direct Composite Restorations in Permanent Teeth: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Review in Cureus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Article
- Long-Term Clinical Performance of Posterior Composite Restorations After Nearly Three Decades: A Clinical Follow-Up Study.Dentistry journal · 2026Article
- Comparative evaluation of clinical outcomes: Minimally invasive versus conventional restorative techniques.Bioinformation · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The present systematic review evaluates the comparative longevity of repaired versus replaced partially fractured direct composite restorations in permanent teeth. The decision to repair or replace a fractured restoration is a significant clinical consideration, influencing functional stability, esthetics, and preservation of tooth structure. Following the PRISMA guidelines, a comprehensive search of PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science was conducted using predefined keywords. Inclusion criteria encompassed clinical and laboratory studies assessing the longevity, success rate, and failure parameters of repaired and replaced restorations. The methodological quality of observational studies was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale, while interventional studies were evaluated using the Cochrane Risk of Bias (ROB-2) tool. A meta-analysis was performed to compare restoration longevity based on parameters such as marginal adaptation, anatomic form, surface roughness, marginal staining, and secondary caries. Nine studies published between 2006 and 2018 were included, with follow-up periods ranging from 2 to 15 years. The meta-analysis revealed that repaired restorations demonstrated superior marginal adaptation (RR = 0.47; p < 0.05) and lower secondary caries incidence (RR = 0.72; p > 0.05), favouring repair over replacement. However, no significant differences were found for anatomic form, surface roughness, or marginal staining. While the methodological quality varied, studies consistently highlighted the benefits of repair in preserving tooth structure and minimizing treatment invasiveness. Repaired composite restorations offer comparable longevity to complete replacement while conserving more tooth structure and reducing patient discomfort. The findings advocate for prioritizing repair as a conservative approach before opting for full restoration replacement. Further longitudinal studies with standardized protocols are needed to optimize restorative strategies.
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.