IJPR  articles are Indexed in SCOPUSClick Here     Impact Factor for Five Years is 0.13 (2013 - 2018).    

logo

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PHARMACEUTICAL RESEARCH

A Step Towards Excellence

IJPR included in UGC-Approved List of Journals - Ref. No. is SL. No. 4812 & J. No. 63703

Published by : Advanced Scientific Research
ISSN
0975-2366
Current Issue
No Data found.
Article In Press
No Data found.
ADOBE READER

(Require Adobe Acrobat Reader to open, If you don't have Adobe Acrobat Reader)

Index Page 1
Click here to Download
IJPR 9[3] July - September 2017 Special Issue

July - September 9[3] 2017

Click to download
 

Article Detail

Label
Label
valuate the Difference in Failure Rates between Amalgam and Composite Resin Posterior Restorations: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Author: MALIHE KARRABI, FARZAD SARANDI, AZADEH KIANIPOUR
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 Metaanalysis. 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.
Keyword: amalgam, composite resin, posterior restorations
DOI: https://doi.org/10.31838/ijpr/2020.12.01.123
Download: Request For Article
 












ONLINE SUBMISSION
USER LOGIN


Username
Password
Login | Register
News & Events
SCImago Journal & Country Rank

Terms and Conditions
Disclaimer
Refund Policy
Instrucations for Subscribers
Privacy Policy

Copyrights Form

0.12
2018CiteScore
 
8th percentile
Powered by  Scopus
Google Scholar

hit counters free