Title |
Adhesively bonded versus non-bonded amalgam restorations for dental caries
|
---|---|
Published in |
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, March 2016
|
DOI | 10.1002/14651858.cd007517.pub3 |
Pubmed ID | |
Authors |
Anirudha Agnihotry, Zbys Fedorowicz, Mona Nasser |
Abstract |
Dental caries (tooth decay) is one of the commonest diseases which afflicts mankind, and has been estimated to affect up to 80% of people in high-income countries. Caries adversely affects and progressively destroys the tissues of the tooth, including the dental pulp (nerve), leaving teeth unsightly, weakened and with impaired function. The treatment of lesions of dental caries, which are progressing through dentine and have caused the formation of a cavity, involves the provision of dental restorations (fillings). This review updates the previous version published in 2009. To assess the effects of adhesive bonding on the in-service performance and longevity of dental amalgam restorations. We searched the Cochrane Oral Health Group Trials Register (to 21 January 2016), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2015, Issue 12), MEDLINE via Ovid (1946 to 21 January 2016) and EMBASE via Ovid (1980 to 21 January 2016). We also searched the US National Institutes of Health Trials Registry (http://clinicaltrials.gov) and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (www.who.int/ictrp/search/en) (both to 21 January 2016) for ongoing trials. No restrictions were placed on the language or date of publication when searching the electronic databases. Randomised controlled trials comparing adhesively bonded versus traditional non-bonded amalgam restorations in conventional preparations utilising deliberate retention, in adults with permanent molar and premolar teeth suitable for Class I and II amalgam restorations only. Two review authors independently screened papers, extracted trial details and assessed the risk of bias in the included study. One trial with 31 patients who received 113 restorations was included. At two years, 50 out of 53 restorations in the non-bonded group survived, and 55 of 60 bonded restorations survived with five unaccounted for at follow-up. Post-insertion sensitivity was not significantly different (P > 0.05) at baseline or two-year follow-up. No fractures of tooth tissue were reported and there was no significant difference between the groups or matched pairs of restorations in their marginal adaptation (P > 0.05). There is no evidence to either claim or refute a difference in survival between bonded and non-bonded amalgam restorations. This review only found one under-reported trial. This trial did not find any significant difference in the in-service performance of moderately sized adhesively bonded amalgam restorations, in terms of their survival rate and marginal integrity, in comparison to non-bonded amalgam restorations over a two-year period. In view of the lack of evidence on the additional benefit of adhesively bonding amalgam in comparison with non-bonded amalgam, it is important that clinicians are mindful of the additional costs that may be incurred. |
Twitter Demographics
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
United Kingdom | 4 | 17% |
Saudi Arabia | 3 | 13% |
Canada | 2 | 9% |
France | 1 | 4% |
Chile | 1 | 4% |
Côte d'Ivoire | 1 | 4% |
Japan | 1 | 4% |
United States | 1 | 4% |
Malta | 1 | 4% |
Other | 0 | 0% |
Unknown | 8 | 35% |
Demographic breakdown
Type | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Members of the public | 15 | 65% |
Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 5 | 22% |
Scientists | 2 | 9% |
Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 4% |
Mendeley readers
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Brazil | 1 | <1% |
Unknown | 195 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Student > Master | 31 | 16% |
Student > Bachelor | 22 | 11% |
Student > Ph. D. Student | 15 | 8% |
Student > Doctoral Student | 15 | 8% |
Student > Postgraduate | 14 | 7% |
Other | 46 | 23% |
Unknown | 53 | 27% |
Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Medicine and Dentistry | 82 | 42% |
Nursing and Health Professions | 11 | 6% |
Psychology | 11 | 6% |
Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 6 | 3% |
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 3 | 2% |
Other | 22 | 11% |
Unknown | 61 | 31% |