Table 4: Indirect treatment comparison (ITC) results.

1. Single dataset results
First author Journal Year Vol. First page DS OR 95%CI
(a) Composite resin versus amalgam restorations
Sachdeo [31] EurJProsthodont RestDent 2004 12 15 CA01 1.39 0.027 - 72.5
Soncini [30] JADA 2007 138 763 CA02 1.95 1.26 - 3.01
Bernado [2] JADA 2007 138 775 CA04 2.47 1.42 - 4.31
(b) HVGIC versus amalgam restorations
Li [27] PractClinMed 2005 6 105 GA02 1.52 0.80 - 2.90
Frencken [28] JDR 2006 85 622 GA07 1.13 0.36 - 3.55
GA10 0.13 0.03 - 0.53
Estupiñán-Day [29] PAHO-report/Ecuador 2006 GA17 2.51 1.11 - 5.69
2. ITC results: HVGIC versus composite resin restorations
DS-1 DS-2 OR 95% CI
CA01 GA02 1.09 0.02 - 59.90
CA01 GA10 0.09 0.001 - 6.08
CA02 GA07 0.58 0.17 - 1.97
CA04 GA17 1.02 0.38 - 2.73

DS = Dataset number; Vol. = Journal volume; DS-1 = Dataset/Composite resin versus amalgam; DS-2 = Dataset/HVGIC versus amalgam; OR = Odds ratio; CI = Confidence interval; ln = Natural logarithm; SE = Standard error; EurJProsthodontRestDent = European Journal of Prosthodontic and Restorative Dentistry; JADA = Journal of the American Dental Association; PractClinMed = Practical Clinical Medicine (journal); JDR = Journal of Dental Research; PAHO = Pan-American Health Organisation; HVGIC = High-viscosity glass-ionomer cement.

Back to Article