Analysis of systematic reviews and meta-analyzes data regarding success of using indirect composite restorations in dental practice
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.32782/2415-8127.2022.65.14Keywords:
indirect composite restorations, direct composite restorations, partial ceramic restorations, composite inlays, success, systematic review, meta-analysis.Abstract
Introduction. The prognosis of the success regarding therapeutic treatment of hard dental tissue defects depends on a number of factors, including those related to the experience of the dentist, the specifics of the clinical situation, the specifics of the technology used for the defect filling/restoration and the type of restoration. Objective – to analyze the success rates of indirect composite restorations according to the systematic reviews and meta-analytical studies, and compare them with the success rates of direct composite restorations and partial ceramic restorations. Methodology/Methods. The research was organized in the form of retrospective analysis of data extracted from systematic reviews and meta-analytical studies. The primary cohort of publications was formed from the number of available reseraches within the PubMed database (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/) after provided targeted search using the appropriate Mesh-terms. Results and Discussion. It was not possible to verify the evidence-based difference between the success rate of direct and indirect composite restorations after processing the data extracted from the systematic reviews and meta-analyzes, which can be argued by the heterogeneity of analyzed studies designs, differences within clinical conditions under which different types of restorations were used, and distinctions within the criteria, which were used to assess the functional status of the restorations. Conclusions. Only some evidences of low and medium quality obtained after processing the data extracted from systematic reviews and meta-analyzes, indicated a higher success rate of indirect composite restorations compare to such registered among direct ones during similar performance period. A statistically confirmed difference between the success rete of direct and indirect composite restorations based on the high quality evidences could not be identified. In the short term perspective indirect partial ceramic restorations characterized by a higher success rete compared to indirect composite restorations during the analysis of such with relatively similar design.
References
de Kuijper M.C., Cune M.S., Özcan M., Gresnigt M.M. Clinical performance of direct composite resin versus indirect restorations on endodontically treated posterior teeth: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Prosthet Dent. 2021 Dec 31; S0022-3913(21)00634-X. DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2021.11.009.
Shu X., Mai Q.Q., Blatz M., Price R., Wang X.D., Zhao K. Direct and Indirect Restorations for Endodontically Treated Teeth: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis, IAAD 2017 Consensus Conference Paper. J Adhes Dent. 2018 May 1; 20(3): 183–194. DOI: 10.3290/j.jad.a40762. 3. Demarco F.F., Collares K., Correa M.B., Cenci M.S., Morares R.R., Opdam N.J. Should my composite restorations last forever? Why are they failing? Braz Oral Res. 2017 Aug 28; 31(suppl 1): e56. DOI: 10.1590/1807-3107BOR-2017.vol31.0056.
Demarco F.F., Corrêa M.B., Cenci M.S., Moraes R.R., Opdam N.J. Longevity of posterior composite restorations: not only a matter of materials. Dent Mater. 2012 Jan 1; 28(1): 87–101. DOI: 10.1016/j.dental.2011.09.003.
Ástvaldsdóttir Á., Dagerhamn J., van Dijken J.W., Naimi-Akbar A., Sandborgh-Englund G., Tranæus S., et al. Longevity of posterior resin composite restorations in adults – A systematic review. J Dent. 2015 Aug 1; 43(8): 934–954. DOI: 10.1016/j. jdent.2015.05.001.
D’Arcangelo C., Vanini L., Casinelli M., Frascaria M., De Angelis F., Vadini M., et al. Adhesive cementation of indirect composite inlays and onlays: A literature review. Compend Contin Educ Dent. 2015 Sep 1; 36(8): 570–577.
Grivas E., Roudsari R.V., Satterthwaite J.D. Composite inlays: a systematic review. Eur J Prosthodont Restor Dent. 2014 Sep 1; 22(3): 117–124.
da Veiga A.M., Cunha A.C., Ferreira D.M., da Silva Fidalgo T.K., Chianca T.K., et al. Longevity of direct and indirect resin composite restorations in permanent posterior teeth: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Dent. 2016 Nov 1; 54: 1–12. DOI: 10.1016/j.jdent.2016.08.003.
Angeletaki F., Gkogkos A., Papazoglou E., Kloukos D. Direct versus indirect inlay/onlay composite restorations in posterior teeth. A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Dent. 2016 Oct 1; 53: 12–21. DOI: 10.1016/j.jdent.2016.07.011.
Azeem R.A., Sureshbabu N.M. Clinical performance of direct versus indirect composite restorations in posterior teeth: A systematic review. J Conserv Dent. 2018 Jan; 21(1): 2–9. DOI: 10.4103/JCD.JCD_213_16.
Fan J., Xu Y., Si L., Li X., Fu B., Hannig M. Long-term clinical performance of composite resin or ceramic inlays, onlays, and overlays: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Oper Dent. 2021 Jan; 46(1): 25–44. DOI: 10.2341/19-107-LIT.
Sampaio F.B., Özcan M., Gimenez T.C., Moreira M.S., Tedesco T.K., Morimoto S. Effects of manufacturing methods on the survival rate of ceramic and indirect composite restorations: A systematic review and meta‐analysis. J Esthet Restor Dent. 2019 Nov; 31(6): 561–571. DOI: 10.1111/jerd.12555.
Mangani F., Marini S., Barabanti N., Preti A., Cerutti A. The success of indirect restorations in posterior teeth: a systematic review of the literature. Minerva Stomatol. 2015. Oct 1; 64(5): 231–240.
Bustamante-Hernández N., Montiel-Company J.M., Bellot-Arcís C., Mañes-Ferrer J.F., Solá-Ruíz M.F., Agustín-Panadero R., et al. Clinical behavior of ceramic, hybrid and composite onlays. A systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020 Oct; 17(20): 7582. DOI: 10.3390/ijerph17207582.
