Journal of Conservative Dentistry
Home About us Editorial Board Instructions Submission Subscribe Advertise Contact e-Alerts Login 
Users Online: 316
Print this page  Email this page Bookmark this page Small font sizeDefault font sizeIncrease font size
REVIEW ARTICLE
Year : 2018  |  Volume : 21  |  Issue : 1  |  Page : 2-9

Clinical performance of direct versus indirect composite restorations in posterior teeth: A systematic review


Department of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, Saveetha Dental College, Saveetha University, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India

Correspondence Address:
Dr. Rubeena Abdul Azeem
Department of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics,Saveetha Dental College, Saveetha University, 162, Poonamallee High Road, Velappanchavadi, Chennai - 600 077, Tamil Nadu
India
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/JCD.JCD_213_16

Rights and Permissions

Background: Composite resin, serves as esthetic alternative to amalgam and cast restorations. Posterior teeth can be restored using direct or indirect composite restorations. The selection between direct and indirect technique is a clinically challenging decision-making process. Most important influencing factor is the amount of remaining tooth substance. Aim: The aim of this systematic review was to compare the clinical performance of direct versus indirect composite restorations in posterior teeth. Materials and Methods: The databases searched included PubMed CENTRAL (until July 2015), Medline, and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. The bibliographies of clinical studies and reviews identified in the electronic search were analyzed to identify studies which were published outside the electronically searched journals. The primary outcome measure was evaluation of the survival of direct and indirect composite restorations in posterior teeth. Results: This review included thirteen studies in which clinical performance of various types of direct and indirect composite restorations in posterior teeth were compared. Out of the thirteen studies which were included seven studies had a high risk of bias and five studies had a moderate risk of bias. One study having a low risk of bias, concluded that there was no significant difference between direct and indirect technique. However, the available evidence revealed inconclusive results. Conclusion: Further research should focus on randomized controlled trials with long term follow-up to give concrete evidence on the clinical performce of direct and indirect composite restorations.


[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
    Viewed1275    
    Printed23    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded208    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal