Which retrograde root filling material?

shutterstock_119290663

This Cochrane review update of different materials used for retrograde root filling in children and adults requiring retrograde filling included 8 RCTs. However the studies are all at high risk of bias so provide insufficient evidence for the benefits of any one material.

[read the full story...]

Composite resin or amalgam fillings for permanent posterior teeth

shutterstock_58678612

This updated Cochrane review of the efficacy and safety of direct composite fillings versus amalgam fillings included 8 RCTs. Low‐certainty evidence suggests that composite resin restorations may have almost double the failure rate of amalgam restorations.

[read the full story...]

Dental restorations: repair or replace?

Filling -amalgam

10 studies were included in this review of the effectiveness of minimally invasive repair or replacement of dental restorations. The reviewers suggest that seal and refurbishment techniques did not present a significant difference in clinical longevity in comparison to the replacement technique in permanent teeth. However, both the amount and the quality of the available evidence is limited.

[read the full story...]

Primary teeth: which restorative material last longer?

PMC 2

This review of the longevity of posterior restoration in primary teeth included 31 studies. composite resin had the lowest annual failure rate while stainless steel crowns had the highest success rate. The studies all have a high risk of bias so the findings should be interpreted cautiously.

[read the full story...]

Top Dental Elf Blogs of 2016

shutterstock_82012684

During 2016 the Dental Elves has published 158 blogs covering a broad range of topics. The most popular blogs of each month are highlighted.

[read the full story...]

Amalgam outperforms composite in range of posterior cavity types

shutterstock_123309112

This review of failure rate of single-unit prostheses versus direct restorations in vital posterior teeth included 14 studies (5 RCTs) finding that composite had a significantly higher failure rate than amalgams, regardless of the remaining tooth structure. For teeth with fewer than 2 remaining walls, direct restorations presented significantly higher failure rates than crowns .

[read the full story...]

Adhesively bonded amalgams – insufficient evidence of better performance

shutterstock_58678612

This Cochrane review update only identified 1 RCT assessing the difference in survival between bonded and non-bonded amalgam restorations providing insufficient evidence to support or refute a difference.

[read the full story...]

Crowns more effective than fillings for decay in primary molar teeth

PMC 2

Five RCTs were included in this Cochrane review comparing crowns with fillings for the management of caries in primary molars. Moderate evidence found crowns reduced the risk of major failure or pain in the long term compared to fillings

[read the full story...]

Amalgam has lower failure rate than composite in restorations

shutterstock_50880346

8 studies were included in this review comparing amalgam with composite in posterior restorations. There was a statistically significant benefit in favour of amalgam for both restoration failure and secondary caries.

[read the full story...]

Composite resin restorations: no good evidence to assess impact on dental pulp

shutterstock_67671655

Only 10 low quality studies were available for this review to assess if a vital pulp restored with composite resin is at greater risk of pulpal complications than one restored with other materials. Questions over the studies qualities make it difficult to draw any conclusions.

[read the full story...]