Clinical longevity of direct and indirect posterior resin composite restorations: An updated systematic review and meta-analysis

Abstract

ObjectivesTo answer the PICO(S) question: Is there a difference in clinical longevity between direct and indirect resin composite restorations placed on permanent posterior teeth? DataRandomized controlled clinical trials (RCTs) investigating direct and indirect resin composite restorations in posterior permanent teeth were considered. SourcesSeveral electronic databases were searched, with no language or date restrictions. The revised Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias (RoB-2) was used to analyze the studies; meta-analyses were run and the certainty of evidence was assessed by the GRADE tool. A subgroup meta-analysis was performed for resin composite restorations placed on posterior worn dentition. Study selectionTwenty-three articles were included in qualitative synthesis, while 8 studies were used for meta-analyses. According to the RoB-2 tool, 5 studies were ranked as “low risk”, 7 had “some concerns”, while 11 papers were rated as “high risk” of bias. There were no statistically significant differences in short-term (p = 0.27; RR=1.54, 95% CI [0.72, 3.33]), medium-term (p = 0.27; RR=1.87, 95% CI [0.61, 5.72]) and long-term longevity (p = 0.86; RR=0.95, 95% CI [0.57, 1.59]). The choice of restorative technique had no influence on short-term survival of resin composite restorations placed on worn dentition (p = 0.13; RR=0.46, 95% CI [0.17, 1.25]). The certainty of evidence was rated as “very low”. ConclusionsDirect and indirect resin composite restorations may show similar clinical longevity in posterior region, regardless of the observation period or substrate (wear-affected and non-affected dentition). The very low quality of evidence suggests that more long-term RCTs are needed to confirm our results.