Journal of Conservative Dentistry
Home About us Editorial Board Instructions Submission Subscribe Advertise Contact e-Alerts Login 
Users Online: 1778
Print this page  Email this page Bookmark this page Small font sizeDefault font sizeIncrease font size
REVIEW ARTICLE
Year : 2022  |  Volume : 25  |  Issue : 4  |  Page : 347-355

Comparative evaluation of clinical performance of ceramic and resin inlays, onlays, and overlays: A systematic review and meta analysis


Department of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, BVDUDCH, Navi Mumbai, Maharashtra, India

Correspondence Address:
Dr. Vishal B Naik
504, Daffodil, Kesar Gardens, Sector-20, Kharghar, Navi Mumbai, Maharashtra
India
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/jcd.jcd_184_22

Rights and Permissions

Background: Advances in adhesive technologies and escalation in esthetic demands have increased indications for tooth-colored, partial coverage restorations. Recently, material knowledge has evolved, new materials have been developed, and no systematic review has answered the question posed by practitioners: Is the clinical efficacy of resin or ceramic better, for inlay, onlay, and overlay in the long run? Aim: The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate the clinical performance of ceramic and resin inlays, onlays, and overlays and to identify the complication types associated with the main clinical outcomes. Materials and Methods: Two reviewers (VN and AJ) searched PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Central registry of controlled trials for published articles between 1983 and 2020 conforming to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guidelines for systematic reviews. Only clinical studies which met the following criteria were included (1) studies regarding ceramic and resin inlays, onlays, and overlays were included; (2) randomized controlled trials, retrospective or prospective studies conducted in humans; (3) studies with a dropout rate <50% 4) studies with a follow-up higher than 5 years. Results: Of 1718 articles, 21 articles were selected. At 5 years, the estimated survival rates for resin (n = 129) was 86%, feldspathic porcelain (n = 1048) was 90%, and glass ceramic (n = 2218) was 92%; at 10 years, the survival of resin was 75% (n = 115), feldspathic porcelain was 91% (n = 1829), and glass ceramic was 89% (n = 1075). Conclusion: The meta-regression indicated that ceramic partial coverage restorations (feldspathic porcelain and glass-ceramic) outperformed resin partial coverage restorations both at 5-year and 10-year follow-up. When compared between ceramic types, glass ceramics outperformed feldspathic porcelain at 5 years' follow-up and feldspathic porcelain outperformed glass ceramics at 10 years' follow-up. The failures were mostly due to fractures (6.2%), endodontic problems (3%), secondary caries (1.7%), and debonding which was 0.9%.


[FULL TEXT] [PDF]*
Print this article     Email this article
 Next article
 Previous article
 Table of Contents

 Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
 Citation Manager
 Access Statistics
 Reader Comments
 Email Alert *
 Add to My List *
 * Requires registration (Free)
 

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed306    
    Printed23    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded32    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal