Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 725

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Longevity of Posterior Composite Restorations: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Open access
Opdam, N.J.M., van de Sande, F.H., Bronkhorst, E., Cenci, M.S., Bottenberg, P., Pallesen, U., Gaengler, P., Lindberg, A., Huysmans, M.C.D.N.J.M., van Dijken, J.W.·2014·Journal of Dental Research

Abstract

The aim of this meta-analysis, based on individual participant data from several studies, was to investigate the influence of patient-, materials-, and tooth-related variables on the survival of posterior resin composite restorations. Following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, we conducted a search resulting in 12 longitudinal studies of direct posterior resin composite restorations with at least 5 years’ follow-up. Original datasets were still available, including placement/failure/censoring of restorations, restored surfaces, materials used, reasons for clinical failure, and caries-risk status. A database including all restorations was constructed, and a multivariate Cox regression method was used to analyze variables of interest [patient (age; gender; caries-risk status), jaw (upper; lower), number of restored surfaces, resin composite and adhesive materials, and use of glass-ionomer cement as base/liner (present or absent)]. The hazard ratios with respective 95% confidence intervals were determined, and annual failure rates were calculated for subgroups. Of all restorations, 2,816 (2,585 Class II and 231 Class I) were included in the analysis, of which 569 failed during the observation period. Main reasons for failure were caries and fracture. The regression analyses showed a significantly higher risk of failure for restorations in high-caries-risk individuals and those with a higher number of restored surfaces.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/0022034514544217

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 1 references

Cited by

See all 725

Metadata

Authors
Opdam, N. J. M., van de Sande, F. H., Bronkhorst, E., Cenci, M. S., Bottenberg, P., Pallesen, U., Gaengler, P., Lindberg, A., Huysmans, M. C. D. N. J. M., & van Dijken, J. W.
Venue
Journal of Dental Research
Published
2014-07-21
Volume
93
Issue
10
Pages
943-949
ISSN
  • 0022-0345 (ISSN-L)
  • 1544-0591
OpenAlex
W2136763833
Cited by
725
References
1
FWCI
59.10
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Longevity of Posterior Composite Restorations: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1177/0022034514544217
The paper
Opdam, N. J. M., van de Sande, F. H., Bronkhorst, E., Cenci, M. S., Bottenberg, P., Pallesen, U., Gaengler, P., Lindberg, A., Huysmans, M. C. D. N. J. M., & van Dijken, J. W. (2014). Longevity of Posterior Composite Restorations: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Journal of Dental Research. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022034514544217

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.