Scolaris Content Display Scolaris Content Display

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Adhesively bonded versus non‐bonded amalgam restorations for dental caries

Information

DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD007517.pub3Copy DOI
Database:
  1. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
Version published:
  1. 08 March 2016see what's new
Type:
  1. Intervention
Stage:
  1. Review
Cochrane Editorial Group:

  1. Cochrane Oral Health Group

Copyright:
  1. Copyright © 2016 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Article metrics

Altmetric:

Cited by:

Cited 0 times via Crossref Cited-by Linking

Collapse

Authors

  • Anirudha Agnihotry

    Correspondence to: Section of Restorative Dentistry, UCLA School of Dentistry, Los Angeles, USA

    [email protected]

  • Zbys Fedorowicz

    Bahrain Branch, Cochrane, Awali, Bahrain

  • Mona Nasser

    Peninsula Dental School, Plymouth University Peninsula Schools of Medicine and Dentistry, Plymouth, UK

Contributions of authors

Anirudha Agnihotry (AA), Zbys Fedorowicz (ZF) and Mona Nasser (MN) were responsible for organising the retrieval of papers; writing to authors of papers for additional information; screening search results; screening retrieved papers against inclusion criteria; appraising the quality of papers; data collection for the review; extracting data from papers; obtaining and screening data on unpublished studies.
ZF and MN entered the data into RevMan and were responsible for analysis and interpretation of the data.
All review authors contributed to writing the review.
All review authors were responsible for designing and co‐ordinating the review and for data management for the review.
Nairn Wilson and ZF conceived the idea for the review and AA is the guarantor for the review.

Sources of support

Internal sources

  • No sources of support supplied

External sources

  • Cochrane Oral Health Group Global Alliance, Other.

    Through our Global Alliance (ohg.cochrane.org/partnerships‐alliances), the Cochrane Oral Health Group has received support from: British Association for the Study of Community Dentistry, UK; British Association of Oral Surgeons, UK; British Orthodontic Society, UK; British Society of Paediatric Dentistry, UK; British Society of Periodontology, UK; Canadian Dental Hygienists Association, Canada; Mayo Clinic, USA; National Center for Dental Hygiene Research & Practice, USA; New York University College of Dentistry, USA; and Royal College of Surgeons of Edinburgh, UK

  • National Institute for Health Research (NIHR), UK.

    This project was supported by the NIHR, via Cochrane Infrastructure funding to the Cochrane Oral Health Group. The views and opinions expressed therein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the Systematic Reviews Programme, NIHR, NHS or the Department of Health

Declarations of interest

There are no financial conflicts of interest and the review authors declare that they do not have any associations with any parties who may have vested interests in the results of this review.

Acknowledgements

The review authors would like to thank the Cochrane Oral Health Group and the peer reviewers and referees for their help in conducting this systematic review. We would also like to thank Professor Jin Xuejuan of the Shanghai Institute of Cardiovascular Diseases who very kindly obtained a full text copy of one of the trials, Dr Edwin Chan Shih‐Yen the Director of the Singapore Branch of the Australasian Cochrane Centre for carrying out the translation of this paper and Dr Bruce Manzer of the College of Health Sciences at the Ministry of Health Bahrain for help with editing earlier drafts of this review. We would also like to acknowledge the contribution of one previous review author Nairn Wilson.

Version history

Published

Title

Stage

Authors

Version

2016 Mar 08

Adhesively bonded versus non‐bonded amalgam restorations for dental caries

Review

Anirudha Agnihotry, Zbys Fedorowicz, Mona Nasser

https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD007517.pub3

2009 Oct 07

Adhesively bonded versus non‐bonded amalgam restorations for dental caries

Review

Zbys Fedorowicz, Mona Nasser, Nairn Wilson

https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD007517.pub2

2009 Jul 08

Adhesively bonded versus non‐bonded amalgam restorations for dental caries

Protocol

Zbys Fedorowicz, Mona Nasser, Nairn Wilson

https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD007517

Notes

This review will not be updated until a substantial body of evidence on the topic becomes available. If trials are conducted and found eligible for inclusion in the future, the review would then be updated accordingly.

Keywords

MeSH

Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) Keywords

Medical Subject Headings Check Words

Adult; Humans;

PICOs

Population
Intervention
Comparison
Outcome

The PICO model is widely used and taught in evidence-based health care as a strategy for formulating questions and search strategies and for characterizing clinical studies or meta-analyses. PICO stands for four different potential components of a clinical question: Patient, Population or Problem; Intervention; Comparison; Outcome.

See more on using PICO in the Cochrane Handbook.

Study flow diagram.
Figures and Tables -
Figure 1

Study flow diagram.

Navigate to figure in ReviewOpen in new tab
Summary of findings for the main comparison. Adhesive bonding for restorations of dental amalgam

Adhesive bonding for restorations of dental amalgam

Patient or population: Patients with restorations of dental amalgam
Intervention: Adhesive bonding

Outcomes

Illustrative comparative risks* (95% CI)

Relative effect
(95% CI)

Number of participants
(studies)

Quality of the evidence
(GRADE)

Comments

Assumed risk

Corresponding risk

Control

Adhesive bonding

Survival of the restoration
Follow‐up: mean 24 months

See comment

See comment

Not estimable

31
(1 study)

⊕⊕⊝⊝
low1,2

Of the adhesively bonded 55/60 were a success, 5 were unavailable at 24‐month follow‐up

Of the non‐bonded 50/53 were a success, and the remaining 3 a failure

Post‐insertion sensitivity or pain assessed by a validated pain scale ‐ not measured

See comment

See comment

Not estimable

‐

See comment

No study addressed this outcome

Secondary caries, as diagnosed clinically ‐ not measured

See comment

See comment

Not estimable

‐

See comment

No study addressed this outcome

Marginal deterioration of the restoration and fracture of the remaining tooth tissue
Follow‐up: mean 24 months

Study population

Not estimable

31
(1 study)

⊕⊕⊝⊝
low1,2

Marginal adaptation USPHS Alpha ratings:

Occlusal; adhesively bonded from 97 at baseline to 96, non‐bonded from 94 at baseline to 88

Proximal; adhesively bonded from 88 at baseline to 91, non‐bonded from 87 at baseline to 82

See comment

See comment

Economic data: direct costs of materials and any reported associated indirect costs ‐ not measured

See comment

See comment

Not estimable

‐

See comment

No study addressed this outcome

Adverse effects: any event for which the causal relationship between the event and the amalgam restoration is at least a reasonable possibility ‐ not measured

See comment

See comment

Not estimable

‐

See comment

No study addressed this outcome

*The basis for the assumed risk (e.g. the median control group risk across studies) is provided in footnotes. The corresponding risk (and its 95% confidence interval) is based on the assumed risk in the comparison group and the relative effect of the intervention (and its 95% CI).
CI: confidence interval

GRADE Working Group grades of evidence
High quality: Further research is very unlikely to change our confidence in the estimate of effect.
Moderate quality: Further research is likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and may change the estimate.
Low quality: Further research is very likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and is likely to change the estimate.
Very low quality: We are very uncertain about the estimate.

1 Attrition bias
2 Low sample size, not meeting optimal information size

Figures and Tables -
Summary of findings for the main comparison. Adhesive bonding for restorations of dental amalgam
Navigate to table in Review
Table 1. Successful or failed restorations at 24 months

Adhesively bonded

Non‐bonded

Success

Failure

Success

Failure

55/60

5 restorations unavailable at 24‐month follow‐up

50/53

3 (5.7%)

Fisher's Exact test P = 0.115
Figures and Tables -
Table 1. Successful or failed restorations at 24 months
Navigate to table in Review
Table 2. Marginal adaptation USPHS Alpha ratings

Occlusal

Proximal

Adhesively bonded

Non‐bonded

Adhesively bonded

Non‐bonded

Baseline

97

94

88

87

24 months

96

88

91

82

All data are expressed as Alpha percentages, remaining ratings were Bravo.
Figures and Tables -
Table 2. Marginal adaptation USPHS Alpha ratings
Navigate to table in Review