Failure Risk of Composite Resin and Amalgam Restorations: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Objective: This systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted to compare the failure risk between amalgam and composite resin materials in permanent posterior teeth. Material and methods: Study eligibility requirements included clinical trials and observational studies with at least 12 months o...
Saved in:
| Main Authors: | , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Elsevier
2025-08-01
|
| Series: | International Dental Journal |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0020653925001601 |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| _version_ | 1849319385976537088 |
|---|---|
| author | Woroud Al-Sulimmani Asmaa Al-Rasheed Hebah Al-Daraan Muna Al-Mutairi Yash Brahmbhatt Hesham Al-Hazmi Hend Al-Qaderi |
| author_facet | Woroud Al-Sulimmani Asmaa Al-Rasheed Hebah Al-Daraan Muna Al-Mutairi Yash Brahmbhatt Hesham Al-Hazmi Hend Al-Qaderi |
| author_sort | Woroud Al-Sulimmani |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Objective: This systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted to compare the failure risk between amalgam and composite resin materials in permanent posterior teeth. Material and methods: Study eligibility requirements included clinical trials and observational studies with at least 12 months of follow-up. English-language studies from 1990 onwards were the only studies included. This review follows the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions and the guidelines of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA). Our search strategy included using the following databases: PubMed, Cochrane, and Google Scholar. The primary outcome was restoration failures, defined as restoration replacements, tooth and restoration fractures, secondary caries, postoperative sensitivity, and toothaches. We conducted a random-effects meta-analysis to determine the risk ratio (RR) of the included studies, and publication bias was assessed. The Cochrane Risk of Bias tool was employed to evaluate the quality of the clinical trials, while the Newcastle–Ottawa scale was used to assess the quality of other studies. Results: The results were derived from 13 studies. The failure proportion for amalgam ranged from 0% to 50.0%, while that of composite resin restorations ranged from 0% to 62.7%. The meta-analysis did not find any statistically significant difference in failure risk between amalgam and composite resin restorations (RR: 0.96, 95% confidence intervals: 0.68-1.34). The Egger’s test results did not show any significant evidence of publication bias in the meta-analysis (P > .05). Conclusion: This review did not reveal any statistically significant difference in the RR between composite resin and amalgam restorations. However, in their analyses, the 13 studies used varying definitions of failure and did not account for some important factors that might have influenced restoration failures. Future reviews need to account for other influential variables that contributed to restoration failures. |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj-art-0eff162cdbe14f06bf314dc7ab24c73a |
| institution | Kabale University |
| issn | 0020-6539 |
| language | English |
| publishDate | 2025-08-01 |
| publisher | Elsevier |
| record_format | Article |
| series | International Dental Journal |
| spelling | doaj-art-0eff162cdbe14f06bf314dc7ab24c73a2025-08-20T03:50:31ZengElsevierInternational Dental Journal0020-65392025-08-0175410087110.1016/j.identj.2025.100871Failure Risk of Composite Resin and Amalgam Restorations: A Systematic Review and Meta-AnalysisWoroud Al-Sulimmani0Asmaa Al-Rasheed1Hebah Al-Daraan2Muna Al-Mutairi3Yash Brahmbhatt4Hesham Al-Hazmi5Hend Al-Qaderi6Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Al-Jahra Speciality Dental Center, Al-Jahra Medical Area, Ministry of Health, Al Jahra, Kuwait; Corresponding author. Block No. 3, Street No. 38, Building No. 12, Kaifan, Al Jahra 78103, Kuwait.Department of Endodontics, Al-Farwaniyah Speciality Dental Center, Al-Farwaniyah Medical Area, Ministry of Health, Al Jahra, KuwaitSchool Oral Health Program, Al-Jahra Speciality Dental Center, Al-Jahra Medical Area, Ministry of Health, Al Jahra, KuwaitSchool Oral Health Program, Al-Jahra Speciality Dental Center, Al-Jahra Medical Area, Ministry of Health, Al Jahra, KuwaitTufts University School of Dental Medicine, Boston, Massachusetts, USAPreventive Dentistry Department, Collage of Dental Medicine, Umm Al-Qura University, Makkah, Saudi ArabiaDepartment of Public Health and Community Service, Tufts University School of Dental Medicine, Boston, Massachusetts, USAObjective: This systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted to compare the failure risk between amalgam and composite resin materials in permanent posterior teeth. Material and methods: Study eligibility requirements included clinical trials and observational studies with at least 12 months of follow-up. English-language studies from 1990 onwards were the only studies included. This review follows the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions and the guidelines of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA). Our search strategy included using the following databases: PubMed, Cochrane, and Google Scholar. The primary outcome was restoration failures, defined as restoration replacements, tooth and restoration fractures, secondary caries, postoperative sensitivity, and toothaches. We conducted a random-effects meta-analysis to determine the risk ratio (RR) of the included studies, and publication bias was assessed. The Cochrane Risk of Bias tool was employed to evaluate the quality of the clinical trials, while the Newcastle–Ottawa scale was used to assess the quality of other studies. Results: The results were derived from 13 studies. The failure proportion for amalgam ranged from 0% to 50.0%, while that of composite resin restorations ranged from 0% to 62.7%. The meta-analysis did not find any statistically significant difference in failure risk between amalgam and composite resin restorations (RR: 0.96, 95% confidence intervals: 0.68-1.34). The Egger’s test results did not show any significant evidence of publication bias in the meta-analysis (P > .05). Conclusion: This review did not reveal any statistically significant difference in the RR between composite resin and amalgam restorations. However, in their analyses, the 13 studies used varying definitions of failure and did not account for some important factors that might have influenced restoration failures. Future reviews need to account for other influential variables that contributed to restoration failures.http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0020653925001601Restorative dentistryComposite resinAmalgamFailure riskMeta-analysis |
| spellingShingle | Woroud Al-Sulimmani Asmaa Al-Rasheed Hebah Al-Daraan Muna Al-Mutairi Yash Brahmbhatt Hesham Al-Hazmi Hend Al-Qaderi Failure Risk of Composite Resin and Amalgam Restorations: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis International Dental Journal Restorative dentistry Composite resin Amalgam Failure risk Meta-analysis |
| title | Failure Risk of Composite Resin and Amalgam Restorations: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis |
| title_full | Failure Risk of Composite Resin and Amalgam Restorations: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis |
| title_fullStr | Failure Risk of Composite Resin and Amalgam Restorations: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis |
| title_full_unstemmed | Failure Risk of Composite Resin and Amalgam Restorations: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis |
| title_short | Failure Risk of Composite Resin and Amalgam Restorations: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis |
| title_sort | failure risk of composite resin and amalgam restorations a systematic review and meta analysis |
| topic | Restorative dentistry Composite resin Amalgam Failure risk Meta-analysis |
| url | http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0020653925001601 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT woroudalsulimmani failureriskofcompositeresinandamalgamrestorationsasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis AT asmaaalrasheed failureriskofcompositeresinandamalgamrestorationsasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis AT hebahaldaraan failureriskofcompositeresinandamalgamrestorationsasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis AT munaalmutairi failureriskofcompositeresinandamalgamrestorationsasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis AT yashbrahmbhatt failureriskofcompositeresinandamalgamrestorationsasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis AT heshamalhazmi failureriskofcompositeresinandamalgamrestorationsasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis AT hendalqaderi failureriskofcompositeresinandamalgamrestorationsasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis |