Evaluate the difference in failure rates between amalgam and composite resin posterior restorations: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Abstract

Background and aim: Thus far, few Randomized controlled trials have in comparison the durability of amalgam versus composite resin restorations. The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate the difference in failure rates between amalgam and composite resin posterior restorations. Method: MEDLINE, PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, ISI, google scholar were used as electronic databases to perform a systematic literature until 2019. A commercially available software program (Endnote X9) was used for electronic title management. Searches were performed with keywords, “amalgam”, “Amalgam Restorations”,” Amalgam Restorations”,” amalgam alloys”, “amalgam mercury” “composite restorations”, “composite resin”, “composite resin cement”, “composite resin materials”,” dental composite resin”,” composite resin density”, “posterior restorations”. The present systematic review was performed based on the main consideration of PRISMA Statement–Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis. Result: A total of 63 potentially relevant titles and abstracts were found during the electronic and manual search. Finally, a total of four publications fulfilled the inclusion criteria required for this systematic review. The random effects model was used for the analysis of failures between the two types of restorations analyzed due to the considerable heterogeneity found (I2 = 90.3; P =0.000). The meta-analysis showed a risk ratio of 0.667 (95 CI: 0.620– 0.739). Conclusion. The results showed, higher longevity of the amalgam restorations compared to composite resin restorations. © 2020, Advanced Scientific Research. All rights reserved.