BernardooMLuisHMartinMDLerouxBGRueTLeitaoJDeRouenTA. 2007. Survival and reasons for failure of amalgam versus composite posterior restorations placed in a randomized clinical trial. J Am Dent Assoc138(6):775–783.
2.
KibretTRicherDBeyeneJ.2014. Bias in identification of the best treatment in a Bayesian network meta-analysis for binary outcome: a simulation study. Clin Epidemiol6:451–460.
3.
MickenautschS. 2016. Letter to the editor: composites—the best choice for load-bearing cavitated lesions in permanent teeth? J Dent Res. 95(9):1073.
SonciniJAMaserejianNNTrachtenbergFTavaresMHayesC.2007. The longevity of amalgam versus compomer/composite restorations in posterior primary and permanent teeth: findings from the New England Children’s Amalgam Trial. J Am Dent Assoc138(6):763–772.
