Is the clinical performance of incremental and bulk-fill resin composite different?

Abstract

Data sources PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature, Brazilian Bibliography in Dentistry and Cochrane Library. The grey literature was searched using the System for Information on Grey Literature in Europe database. Abstracts from the Annual Session of the International Association for Dental Research and its regional subgroups (1990-2020) were searched. Theses and dissertations (full texts) were searched in the ProQuest and Capes databases. Unpublished and ongoing studies were searched in clinical trial databases (Current Controlled Trials, International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, ClinicalTrials.gov, Registro Brasileiro de Ensaios Clínicos and EU Clinical Trials Register).Study selection In total, 14 randomised clinical trials comparing the clinical performance of composite resin restorations in posterior teeth placed with the incremental or the bulk-filling techniques were evaluated.Data extraction and synthesis Relevant information on the research project, participants, interventions and outcomes was collected using extraction forms by three study authors. Data extraction was pilot-tested using a sample of four studies to ensure that the data were consistent with the specific research question. To avoid overlapping, multiple reports of the same study with different follow-ups were extracted into a single form.Results Considering the primary and secondary outcomes (retention/fracture rate, anatomical form, surface texture, colour match, marginal adaption, marginal discoloration, caries and postoperative sensitivity), it is possible to state that there was no difference between incremental or bulk fill resin composite techniques in Class II and I cavities.Conclusions A systematic review and meta-analysis with moderated quality of evidence bulk fill and incremental techniques showed similar clinical performance on posterior resin composite restorations.