Survival and reasons for failure of amalgam versus composite posterior restorations placed in a randomized clinical trial.

By M. Bernardo, H. Luís, Michael D. Martin, B. Leroux, T. Rue, J. Leitão, T. Derouen. The Journal of the American Dental Association (1939), 2007

615 citations recorded by the source corpus.

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

Degradation, fatigue and failure of resin dental composite materials (2008, background): “However, longevity and survival studies in posterior teeth continue to show that amalgam has a better track record than composite, further reinforcing the need to understand the failure mechanisms of dental composites to enhance their survival (Bernardo et al., 2007; Soncini et al., 2007).”
Longevity of posterior composite restorations: not only a matter of materials. (2012, background): “…sensitivity Marginal discoloration Anatomic form/wear Other/ unknown Da Rosa Rodolpho et al., 2011 [3] 22 years Opdam et al., 2010 [12] 12 years 1.2 Bernardo et al., 2007 [8] 7 years Lindberg et al., 2007 [105] 9 years Opdam et al., 2007 [24] 9 years Total-etch 3 Sandwich 6 Opdam et al., 2007…”
Recent Advances and Developments in Composite Dental Restorative Materials (2011, background): “Clinical evaluations (Bernardo et al., 2007) and laboratory-based studies focused on composite durability (Drummond, 2008) also continue to highlight this need for new materials.”