Longevity of direct and indirect resin composite restorations in permanent posterior teeth: A systematic review and meta-analysis. (November 2016)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: da Veiga, Ana Maria Antonelli; Cunha, Amanda Carneiro; Ferreira, Daniele Masterson Tavares Pereira; da Silva Fidalgo, Tatiana Kelly; Chianca, Thomaz Kauark; Reis, Kátia Rodrigues; Maia, Lucianne Cople
• Is Part Of: Journal of dentistry. Volume 54(2016:Nov.)
• Page Start: 1
• Page End: 12
• Publication Date: 2016-11
• Subjects: Resin composite restoration -- Inlay -- Direct composite -- Longevity -- Systematic review -- Meta-analysis; Dentistry -- Periodicals; Dentistry -- Periodicals; Dentisterie -- Périodiques; Electronic journals; 617.6005
• DOI: 10.1016/j.jdent.2016.08.003
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0300-5712

Abstract

Abstract: Objectives: The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to assess the differences in clinical performance in direct and indirect resin composite restorations in permanent posterior teeth. Sources: PubMed, the Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Scopus, LILACS, BBO, ClinicalTrials.gov and SiGLE were searched without restrictions. Study selection: We included randomized clinical trials (RCTs) that compared the clinical performance of direct and indirect resin composite restorations in Class I and Class II cavities in permanent teeth, with at least two years of follow-up. The risk of bias tool suggested by Cochrane Collaboration was used for quality assessment. Data: After duplicate removal, 912 studies were identified. Twenty fulfilled the inclusion criteria after the abstract screening. Two articles were added after a hand search of the reference list of included studies. After examination, nine RCTs were included in the qualitative analysis and five were considered to have a 'low' risk of bias. The overall risk difference in longevity between direct and indirect resin composite restorations in permanent posterior teeth (p > 0.05) at five-year follow-up was 1.494 [0.893–2.500], and regardless of the type of tooth restored, that of molar and premolars was 0.716 [0.177–2.888] at three-year follow-up. Conclusions: Based on the findings, there was no difference in longevity of direct and indirect resin composite restorations regardless of the type of material and the restored tooth. Clinical significance: Contemporary dentistry is based on minimally invasive restorations. Any indication of a less conservative technique must have unquestionable advantages. In vitro and in vivo studies reveal contradictory evidence of the clinical performance of direct and indirect resin composite restorations in posterior teeth. Thus this study clarified this doubt.