ReviewCureus2025
Longevity of Amalgam Versus Composite Resin Restorations in Permanent Posterior Teeth: A Systematic Review.
Review in Cureus, 2025. 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.
- How does thermocycling affect the surface properties of ion-releasing bulk‑fill resin composites?European journal of oral sciences · 2026Article
- Cariogenic Risk Modifies the Effect of Marginal Adaptation on Caries Adjacent to Posterior Composite Restorations: A Stratified Multivariate Analysis.Clinics and practice · 2026Article
- Article
- Effect of Nano-Silver Fluoride Containing 2000 ppm Silver Nanoparticles on the Microhardness and Color of Flowable Resin Composites: An In Vitro Pilot Study.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Dental Amalgam and Oral Biological Responses: A Narrative Review of Current Evidence.Dentistry journal · 2026Review
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 aims to compare the longevity of amalgam and composite resin restorations in adult human posterior permanent teeth, evaluating clinical performance, survival rates, failure causes, and influencing factors. Following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, a comprehensive search was conducted in PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and other databases. Studies were included if they assessed the longevity of amalgam and composite resin restorations in adult posterior teeth with at least one year of follow-up. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) and Cochrane Risk of Bias (ROB) tool were used for the assessment of risk of bias. Eight studies (2003-2023) met the inclusion criteria, comprising randomized clinical trials, prospective, retrospective, and cross-sectional studies. Amalgam restorations exhibited superior longevity, with median survival times exceeding 16 years, compared to 11 years for composite restorations. Secondary caries was the most common cause of composite failure, whereas fracture was the primary reason for amalgam replacement. Patient factors, including oral hygiene and bruxism, significantly influenced restoration longevity. Amalgam restorations demonstrate greater durability than composite resins in posterior teeth. However, aesthetic preferences and advancements in composite materials continue to drive their usage. Future research should focus on improving composite longevity to provide viable alternatives to amalgam.
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.