Home Dental Radiology Treatment options for large posterior restorations: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

Treatment options for large posterior restorations: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

by adminjay


    • Righolt A.J.
    • Jevdjevic M.
    • Marcenes W.
    • Listl S.

    Global-, regional-, and country-level economic impacts of dental diseases in 2015.

    J Dent Res. 2018; 97: 501-507

    View
    in Article

    • Scopus (0)
    • PubMed
    • Crossref
    • Google Scholar
    • Frencken J.E.
    • Peters M.C.
    • Manton D.J.
    • Leal S.C.
    • Gordan V.V.
    • Eden E.

    Minimal intervention dentistry for managing dental caries: a review.

    Int Dent J. 2012; 62: 223-243

    View
    in Article

    • Scopus (0)
    • PubMed
    • Crossref
    • Google Scholar
    • Opdam N.
    • Frankenberger R.
    • Magne P.

    From ‘direct versus indirect’ toward an integrated restorative concept in the posterior dentition.

    Oper Dent. 2016; 41: S27-S34

    View
    in Article

    • Scopus (17)
    • PubMed
    • Crossref
    • Google Scholar
    • Schwendicke F.
    • Gostemeyer G.
    • Blunck U.
    • Paris S.
    • Hsu L.Y.
    • Tu Y.K.

    Directly placed restorative materials: review and network meta-analysis.

    J Dent Res. 2016; 95: 613-622

    View
    in Article

    • PubMed
    • Crossref
    • Google Scholar
    • Opdam N.J.
    • van de Sande F.H.
    • Bronkhorst E.
    • et al.

    Longevity of posterior composite restorations: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

    J Dent Res. 2014; 93: 943-949

    View
    in Article

    • Scopus (261)
    • PubMed
    • Crossref
    • Google Scholar
    • Alcaraz M.G.R.
    • Veitz-Keenan A.
    • Sahrmann P.
    • Schmidlin P.R.
    • Davis D.
    • Iheozor-Ejiofor Z.

    Direct composite resin fillings versus amalgam fillings for permanent or adult posterior teeth.

    Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014 Mar 31; : CD005620

    View
    in Article

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
    • Laske M.
    • Opdam N.J.M.
    • Bronkhorst E.M.
    • Braspenning J.C.C.
    • Huysmans MCDNJM

    Risk factors for dental restoration survival: a practice-based study.

    J Dent Res. 2019; 98: 414-422

    View
    in Article

    • Scopus (8)
    • PubMed
    • Crossref
    • Google Scholar
    • van de Sande F.H.
    • Collares K.
    • Correa M.B.
    • Cenci M.S.
    • Demarco F.F.
    • Opdam N.

    Restoration survival: revisiting patients’ risk factors through a systematic literature review.

    Oper Dent. 2016; 41: S7-S26

    View
    in Article

    • Scopus (0)
    • PubMed
    • Crossref
    • Google Scholar
    • Eltahlah D.
    • Lynch C.D.
    • Chadwick B.L.
    • Blum I.R.
    • Wilson N.H.F.

    An update on the reasons for placement and replacement of direct restorations.

    J Dent. 2018; 72: 1-7

    View
    in Article

    • Scopus (31)
    • PubMed
    • Crossref
    • Google Scholar
    • Astvaldsdottir A.
    • Dagerhamn J.
    • van Dijken J.W.V.
    • et al.

    Longevity of posterior resin composite restorations in adults: a systematic review.

    J Dent. 2015; 43: 934-954

    View
    in Article

    • PubMed
    • Crossref
    • Google Scholar
    • Collares K.
    • Correa M.B.
    • Bronkhorst E.M.
    • Laske M.
    • Huysmans MCDNJM
    • Opdam N.J.

    A practice based longevity study on single-unit crowns.

    J Dent. 2018; 74: 43-48

    View
    in Article

    • Scopus (3)
    • PubMed
    • Crossref
    • Google Scholar
    • Skupien J.A.
    • Cenci M.S.
    • Opdam N.J.
    • Kreulen C.M.
    • Huysmans M.C.
    • Pereira-Cenci T.

    Crown vs. composite for post-retained restorations: a randomized clinical trial.

    J Dent. 2016; 48: 34-39

    View
    in Article

    • PubMed
    • Crossref
    • Google Scholar
    • Sailer I.
    • Makarov N.A.
    • Thoma D.S.
    • Zwahlen M.
    • Pjetursson B.E.

    All-ceramic or metal-ceramic tooth-supported fixed dental prostheses (FDPs)? A systematic review of the survival and complication rates, part I—single crowns (SCs).

    Dent Mater. 2015; 31: 603-623

    View
    in Article

    • PubMed
    • Crossref
    • Google Scholar
    • Sarkis-Onofre R.
    • Pereira-Cenci T.
    • Tricco A.C.
    • Demarco F.F.
    • Moher D.
    • Cenci M.S.

    Systematic reviews in restorative dentistry: discussing relevant aspects.

    J Esthet Restor Dent. 2019; 31: 222-232

    View
    in Article

    • Scopus (2)
    • PubMed
    • Crossref
    • Google Scholar
    • Jansen J.P.
    • Naci H.

    Is network meta-analysis as valid as standard pairwise meta-analysis? It all depends on the distribution of effect modifiers.

    BMC Med. 2013; 11: 159

    View
    in Article

    • Scopus (229)
    • PubMed
    • Crossref
    • Google Scholar
    • Cumpston M.
    • Li T.
    • Page M.J.
    • et al.

    Updated guidance for trusted systematic reviews: a new edition of the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions.

    Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2019 Oct 3; 10: ED000142

    View
    in Article

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
    • Hutton B.
    • Salanti G.
    • Caldwell D.M.
    • et al.

    The PRISMA extension statement for reporting of systematic reviews incorporating network meta-analyses of health care interventions: checklist and explanations.

    Ann Intern Med. 2015; 162: 777-784

    View
    in Article

    • Scopus (1239)
    • PubMed
    • Crossref
    • Google Scholar
    • Van de Sande F.H.
    • Opdam N.J.
    • Rodolpho P.A.
    • Correa M.B.
    • Demarco F.F.
    • Cenci M.S.

    Patient risk factors’ influence on survival of posterior composites.

    J Dent Res. 2013; 92: 78S-83S

    View
    in Article

    • PubMed
    • Crossref
    • Google Scholar
    • R Core Team

    R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing.

    R Foundation for Statistical Computing,
    Vienna, Austria2019

    View
    in Article

    • Google Scholar
    • Lin L.
    • Zhang J.
    • Hodges J.S.
    • Chu H.

    Performing arm-based network meta-analysis in R with the pcnetmeta package.

    J Stat Softw. 2017; 80: 1-25

    View
    in Article

    • Scopus (33)
    • Crossref
    • Google Scholar
    • Schwarzer G.

    meta: an R package for meta-analysis.

    R News. 2007; 7: 40-45

    View
    in Article

    • Google Scholar
    • Brooks S.P.
    • Gelman A.

    General methods for monitoring convergence of iterative simulations.

    J Comput Graph Stat. 1998; 7: 434-455

    View
    in Article

    • Google Scholar
    • Higgins J.P.
    • Altman D.G.
    • Gotzsche P.C.
    • et al.
    • Cochrane Statistical Methods Group

    The Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials.

    BMJ. 2011; 343: d5928

    View
    in Article

    • Scopus (9670)
    • PubMed
    • Crossref
    • Google Scholar
    • Sterne J.A.
    • Hernan M.A.
    • Reeves B.C.
    • et al.

    ROBINS-I: a tool for assessing risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions.

    BMJ. 2016; 355: i4919

    View
    in Article

    • PubMed
    • Crossref
    • Google Scholar
    • Guyatt G.H.
    • Oxman A.D.
    • Vist G.E.
    • et al.
    • GRADE Working Group

    GRADE: an emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations.

    BMJ. 2008; 336: 924-926

    View
    in Article

    • PubMed
    • Crossref
    • Google Scholar
    • Rasmusson C.G.
    • Lundin S.A.

    Class II restorations in 6 different posterior composite resins: 5-year results.

    Swed Dent J. 1995; 19: 173-182

    View
    in Article

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
    • Felden A.
    • Schmalz G.
    • Federlin M.
    • Hiller K.A.

    Retrospective clinical investigation and survival analysis on ceramic inlays and partial ceramic crowns: results up to 7 years.

    Clin Oral Investig. 1998; 2: 161-167

    View
    in Article

    • PubMed
    • Crossref
    • Google Scholar
    • Wagner J.
    • Hiller K.A.
    • Schmalz G.

    Long-term clinical performance and longevity of gold alloy vs ceramic partial crowns.

    Clin Oral Investig. 2003; 7: 80-85

    View
    in Article

    • PubMed
    • Crossref
    • Google Scholar
    • Arnelund C.F.
    • Johansson A.
    • Ericson M.
    • Hager P.
    • Fyrberg K.A.

    Five-year evaluation of two resin-retained ceramic systems: a retrospective study in a general practice setting.

    Int J Prosthodont. 2004; 17: 302-306

    View
    in Article

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
    • Opdam N.J.
    • Bronkhorst E.M.
    • Roeters J.M.
    • Loomans B.A.

    Longevity and reasons for failure of sandwich and total-etch posterior composite resin restorations.

    J Adhes Dent. 2007; 9: 469-475

    View
    in Article

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
    • Opdam N.J.
    • Bronkhorst E.M.
    • Loomans B.A.
    • Huysmans M.C.

    12-year survival of composite vs. amalgam restorations.

    J Dent Res. 2010; 89: 1063-1067

    View
    in Article

    • Scopus (306)
    • PubMed
    • Crossref
    • Google Scholar
    • Kim K.L.
    • Namgung C.
    • Cho B.H.

    The effect of clinical performance on the survival estimates of direct restorations.

    Restor Dent Endod. 2013; 38: 11-20

    View
    in Article

    • PubMed
    • Crossref
    • Google Scholar
    • Skupien J.A.
    • Opdam N.
    • Winnen R.
    • et al.

    A practice-based study on the survival of restored endodontically treated teeth.

    J Endod. 2013; 39: 1335-1340

    View
    in Article

    • PubMed
    • Abstract
    • Full Text
    • Full Text PDF
    • Google Scholar
    • van de Sande F.H.
    • Rodolpho P.A.
    • Basso G.R.
    • et al.

    18-year survival of posterior composite resin restorations with and without glass ionomer cement as base.

    Dent Mater. 2015; 31: 669-675

    View
    in Article

    • PubMed
    • Crossref
    • Google Scholar
    • Collares K.
    • Correa M.B.
    • Laske M.
    • et al.

    A practice-based research network on the survival of ceramic inlay/onlay restorations.

    Dent Mater. 2016; 32: 687-694

    View
    in Article

    • PubMed
    • Crossref
    • Google Scholar
    • Laske M.
    • Opdam N.J.
    • Bronkhorst E.M.
    • Braspenning J.C.
    • Huysmans M.C.

    Longevity of direct restorations in Dutch dental practices: descriptive study out of a practice based research network.

    J Dent. 2016; 46: 12-17

    View
    in Article

    • PubMed
    • Crossref
    • Google Scholar
    • Naghipur S.
    • Pesun I.
    • Nowakowski A.
    • Kim A.

    Twelve-year survival of 2-surface composite resin and amalgam premolar restorations placed by dental students.

    J Prosthet Dent. 2016; 116: 336-339

    View
    in Article

    • PubMed
    • Abstract
    • Full Text
    • Full Text PDF
    • Google Scholar
    • Rinke S.
    • Kramer K.
    • Burgers R.
    • Roediger M.

    A practice-based clinical evaluation of the survival and success of metal-ceramic and zirconia molar crowns: 5-year results.

    J Oral Rehabil. 2016; 43: 136-144

    View
    in Article

    • Scopus (13)
    • PubMed
    • Crossref
    • Google Scholar
    • Olley R.C.
    • Andiappan M.
    • Frost P.M.

    An up to 50-year follow-up of crown and veneer survival in a dental practice.

    J Prosthet Dent. 2018; 119: 935-941

    View
    in Article

    • Scopus (0)
    • PubMed
    • Abstract
    • Full Text
    • Full Text PDF
    • Google Scholar
    • Borgia E.
    • Baron R.
    • Borgia J.L.

    Quality and survival of direct light-activated composite resin restorations in posterior teeth: a 5- to 20-year retrospective longitudinal study.

    J Prosthodont. 2019; 28: e195-e203

    View
    in Article

    • Scopus (13)
    • PubMed
    • Crossref
    • Google Scholar
    • Rowe A.H.

    A five year study of the clinical performance of a posterior composite resin restorative material.

    J Dent. 1989; 17 (discussion S26-S28): S6-S9

    View
    in Article

    • PubMed
    • Crossref
    • Google Scholar
    • Norman R.D.
    • Wright J.S.
    • Rydberg R.J.
    • Felkner L.L.

    A 5-year study comparing a posterior composite resin and an amalgam.

    J Prosthet Dent. 1990; 64: 523-529

    View
    in Article

    • Scopus (0)
    • PubMed
    • Abstract
    • Full Text PDF
    • Google Scholar
    • Mjor I.A.
    • Jokstad A.

    Five-year study of class II restorations in permanent teeth using amalgam, glass polyalkenoate (ionomer) cement and resin-based composite materials.

    J Dent. 1993; 21: 338-343

    View
    in Article

    • Scopus (0)
    • PubMed
    • Crossref
    • Google Scholar
    • Lumley P.J.
    • Fisher F.J.

    Tunnel restorations: a long-term pilot study over a minimum of five years.

    J Dent. 1995; 23: 213-215

    View
    in Article

    • PubMed
    • Crossref
    • Google Scholar
    • Mair L.H.

    Ten-year clinical assessment of three posterior resin composites and two amalgams.

    Quintessence Int. 1998; 29: 483-490

    View
    in Article

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
    • Erpenstein H.
    • Borchard R.
    • Kerschbaum T.

    Long-term clinical results of galvano-ceramic and glass-ceramic individual crowns.

    J Prosthet Dent. 2000; 83: 530-534

    View
    in Article

    • PubMed
    • Abstract
    • Full Text
    • Full Text PDF
    • Google Scholar
    • Pallesen U.
    • van Dijken J.W.

    An 8-year evaluation of sintered ceramic and glass ceramic inlays processed by the Cerec CAD/CAM system.

    Eur J Oral Sci. 2000; 108: 239-246

    View
    in Article

    • PubMed
    • Crossref
    • Google Scholar
    • van Dijken J.W.

    Direct resin composite inlays/onlays: an 11 year follow-up.

    J Dent. 2000; 28: 299-306

    View
    in Article

    • PubMed
    • Crossref
    • Google Scholar
    • Wassell R.W.
    • Walls A.W.
    • McCabe J.F.

    Direct composite inlays versus conventional composite restorations: 5-year follow-up.

    J Dent. 2000; 28: 375-382

    View
    in Article

    • PubMed
    • Crossref
    • Google Scholar
    • Thordrup M.
    • Isidor F.
    • Horsted-Bindslev P.

    A 5-year clinical study of indirect and direct resin composite and ceramic inlays.

    Quintessence Int. 2001; 32: 199-205

    View
    in Article

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
    • Pallesen U.
    • Qvist V.

    Composite resin fillings and inlays: an 11-year evaluation.

    Clin Oral Investig. 2003; 7: 71-79

    View
    in Article

    • PubMed
    • Crossref
    • Google Scholar
    • Mannocci F.
    • Qualtrough A.J.
    • Worthington H.V.
    • Watson T.F.
    • Pitt Ford T.R.

    Randomized clinical comparison of endodontically treated teeth restored with amalgam or with fiber posts and resin composite: five-year results.

    Oper Dent. 2005; 30: 9-15

    View
    in Article

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
    • Bernardo M.
    • Luis H.
    • Martin M.D.
    • et al.

    Survival and reasons for failure of amalgam versus composite posterior restorations placed in a randomized clinical trial.

    JADA. 2007; 138: 775-783

    View
    in Article

    • PubMed
    • Abstract
    • Full Text
    • Full Text PDF
    • Google Scholar
    • Khairallah C.
    • Hokayem A.

    Long-term clinical evaluation of 2 dental materials used for the preparation of esthetic inlays [in French].

    Odontostomatol Trop. 2009; 32: 5-13

    View
    in Article

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
    • Federlin M.
    • Hiller K.A.
    • Schmalz G.

    Controlled, prospective clinical split-mouth study of cast gold vs. ceramic partial crowns: 5.5 year results.

    Am J Dent. 2010; 23: 161-167

    View
    in Article

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
    • Guess P.C.
    • Selz C.F.
    • Steinhart Y.N.
    • Stampf S.
    • Strub J.R.

    Prospective clinical split-mouth study of pressed and CAD/CAM all-ceramic partial-coverage restorations: 7-year results.

    Int J Prosthodont. 2013; 26: 21-25

    View
    in Article

    • Scopus (0)
    • PubMed
    • Crossref
    • Google Scholar
    • Passia N.
    • Stampf S.
    • Strub J.R.

    Five-year results of a prospective randomised controlled clinical trial of posterior computer-aided design-computer-aided manufacturing ZrSiO4-ceramic crowns.

    J Oral Rehabil. 2013; 40: 609-617

    View
    in Article

    • Scopus (10)
    • PubMed
    • Crossref
    • Google Scholar
    • Fennis W.M.
    • Kuijs R.H.
    • Roeters F.J.
    • Creugers N.H.
    • Kreulen C.M.

    Randomized control trial of composite cuspal restorations: five-year results.

    J Dent Res. 2014; 93: 36-41

    View
    in Article

    • Scopus (31)
    • PubMed
    • Crossref
    • Google Scholar
    • van Dijken J.W.
    • Pallesen U.

    A randomized 10-year prospective follow-up of class II nanohybrid and conventional hybrid resin composite restorations.

    J Adhes Dent. 2014; 16: 585-592

    View
    in Article

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
    • Kramer N.
    • Reinelt C.
    • Frankenberger R.

    Ten-year clinical performance of posterior resin composite restorations.

    J Adhes Dent. 2015; 17: 433-441

    View
    in Article

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
    • Pallesen U.
    • van Dijken J.W.

    A randomized controlled 27 years follow up of three resin composites in class II restorations.

    J Dent. 2015; 43: 1547-1558

    View
    in Article

    • PubMed
    • Crossref
    • Google Scholar
    • Pallesen U.
    • van Dijken J.W.

    A randomized controlled 30 years follow up of three conventional resin composites in class II restorations.

    Dent Mater. 2015; 31: 1232-1244

    View
    in Article

    • Scopus (0)
    • PubMed
    • Crossref
    • Google Scholar
    • Schmidt M.
    • Dige I.
    • Kirkevang L.L.
    • Vaeth M.
    • Horsted-Bindslev P.

    Five-year evaluation of a low-shrinkage Silorane resin composite material: a randomized clinical trial.

    Clin Oral Investig. 2015; 19: 245-251

    View
    in Article

    • Scopus (17)
    • PubMed
    • Crossref
    • Google Scholar
    • van Dijken J.W.
    • Lindberg A.

    A 15-year randomized controlled study of a reduced shrinkage stress resin composite.

    Dent Mater. 2015; 31: 1150-1158

    View
    in Article

    • PubMed
    • Crossref
    • Google Scholar
    • Santos M.J.
    • Freitas M.C.
    • Azevedo L.M.
    • et al.

    Clinical evaluation of ceramic inlays and onlays fabricated with two systems: 12-year follow-up.

    Clin Oral Investig. 2016; 20: 1683-1690

    View
    in Article

    • Scopus (13)
    • PubMed
    • Crossref
    • Google Scholar
    • van Dijken J.W.
    • Pallesen U.

    Posterior bulk-filled resin composite restorations: a 5-year randomized controlled clinical study.

    J Dent. 2016; 51: 29-35

    View
    in Article

    • PubMed
    • Crossref
    • Google Scholar
    • Monaco C.
    • Llukacej A.
    • Baldissara P.
    • Arena A.
    • Scotti R.

    Zirconia-based versus metal-based single crowns veneered with overpressing ceramic for restoration of posterior endodontically treated teeth: 5-year results of a randomized controlled clinical study.

    J Dent. 2017; 65: 56-63

    View
    in Article

    • Scopus (0)
    • PubMed
    • Crossref
    • Google Scholar
    • Demarco F.F.
    • Collares K.
    • Correa M.B.
    • Cenci M.S.
    • Moraes R.R.
    • Opdam N.J.

    Should my composite restorations last forever? Why are they failing?.

    Braz Oral Res. 2017; 31: 92-99

    View
    in Article

    • Crossref
    • Google Scholar
    • Demarco F.F.
    • Correa M.B.
    • Cenci M.S.
    • Moraes R.R.
    • Opdam N.J.M.

    Longevity of posterior composite restorations: not only a matter of materials.

    Dent Mater. 2012; 28: 87-101

    View
    in Article

    • Scopus (418)
    • PubMed
    • Crossref
    • Google Scholar
    • Lynch C.D.
    • Opdam N.J.
    • Hickel R.
    • et al.
    • Academy of Operative Dentistry European Section

    Guidance on posterior resin composites: Academy of Operative Dentistry–European section.

    J Dent. 2014; 42: 377-383

    View
    in Article

    • Scopus (0)
    • PubMed
    • Crossref
    • Google Scholar
    • Schwendicke F.
    • Opdam N.

    Clinical studies in restorative dentistry: design, conduct, analysis.

    Dent Mater. 2018; 34: 29-39

    View
    in Article

    • Scopus (0)
    • PubMed
    • Crossref
    • Google Scholar
    • Lee D.W.
    • Shin I.S.

    Critical quality evaluation of network meta-analyses in dental care.

    J Dent. 2018; 75: 7-11

    View
    in Article

    • Scopus (0)
    • PubMed
    • Crossref
    • Google Scholar
    • Heintze S.D.
    • Rousson V.

    Clinical effectiveness of direct class II restorations: a meta-analysis.

    J Adhes Dent. 2012; 14: 407-431

    View
    in Article

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
    • Manhart J.
    • Chen H.Y.
    • Hamm G.
    • Hickel R.

    Review of the clinical survival of direct and indirect restorations in posterior teeth of the permanent dentition.

    Oper Dent. 2004; 29: 481-508

    View
    in Article

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
    • Veiga A.M.
    • Cunha A.C.
    • Ferreira D.M.
    • et al.

    Longevity of direct and indirect resin composite restorations in permanent posterior teeth: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

    J Dent. 2016; 54: 1-12

    View
    in Article

    • Scopus (31)
    • PubMed
    • Crossref
    • Google Scholar


  • Source link

    Related Articles

    Leave a Comment