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

• 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

• 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

• 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

• 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

• 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

• 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

• 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

• 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

• 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

• 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

• 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

• 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

• 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

• 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

• 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

• 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

• 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

• 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

• R Core Team

R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing.

R Foundation for Statistical Computing,
Vienna, Austria2019

• 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

• Schwarzer G.

meta: an R package for meta-analysis.

R News. 2007; 7: 40-45

• Brooks S.P.
• Gelman A.

General methods for monitoring convergence of iterative simulations.

J Comput Graph Stat. 1998; 7: 434-455

• 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

• 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

• 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

• 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

• 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

• 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

• 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

• 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

• 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

• 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

• 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

• 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

• 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

• 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

• 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

• 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

• 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

• 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

• 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

• 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

• 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

• 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

• Mair L.H.

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

Quintessence Int. 1998; 29: 483-490

• 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

• 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

• van Dijken J.W.

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

J Dent. 2000; 28: 299-306

• 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

• 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

• Pallesen U.
• Qvist V.

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

Clin Oral Investig. 2003; 7: 71-79

• 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

• 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

• 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

• 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

• 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

• 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

• 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

• 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

• Kramer N.
• Reinelt C.
• Frankenberger R.

Ten-year clinical performance of posterior resin composite restorations.

J Adhes Dent. 2015; 17: 433-441

• 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

• 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

• 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

• 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

• 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

• 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

• 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

• 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

• 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

• 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

• Schwendicke F.
• Opdam N.

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

Dent Mater. 2018; 34: 29-39

• Lee D.W.
• Shin I.S.

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

J Dent. 2018; 75: 7-11

• Heintze S.D.
• Rousson V.

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

J Adhes Dent. 2012; 14: 407-431

• 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

• 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