ArticleBMC oral health2026
Short-term clinical success of posterior amalgam and composite restorations in public dental care: a multicenter retrospective study.
Article in BMC oral health, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
objectivesThis study evaluated the short-term clinical success of posterior amalgam (PAR) and composite resin restorations (PCRR) and compared their retention period (restoration age at evaluation). MATERIALS AND
methodsPatients with posterior restorations evaluated over a mean follow-up period of 1.29 ± 0.48 years (range: 0.50–2.46 years) from public dental institutions were included. Failure was defined as fracture, anatomical form/contact mismatch, or secondary caries. Of 831 screened, 360 patients (848 restorations) met the criteria. Data were recorded; statistical significance was set at p < 0.05.
resultsParticipants were 52.2% female and 47.8% male. Composite was used more often than amalgam (78.2% vs. 21.8%). Overall clinical success was 88.6%. Clinical success was similar for PCRR and PAR (88.8% vs. 87.6%; χ²=5.174, p = 0.075) and mean retention period did not differ (1.30 vs. 1.23 years; t = 1.458, p = 0.145). Mandibular first molars were most frequently restored/failed; fracture and secondary caries were the main failure reasons, with no statistically significant difference between materials (p > 0.05).
conclusionsPAR and PCRR showed comparable short-term clinical success with similar retention rates. The retention period should be distinguished from clinical survival, which requires standardized long-term follow-up with defect and function-based evaluation. Further studies with extended observation periods are warranted. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Because fracture and secondary caries were the predominant short-term failure modes, improving isolation/technique, occlusal adjustment and caries-risk–based prevention—especially in mandibular first molars—may enhance outcomes in public dental settings.
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.