Clinical efficacy of composite versus ceramic inlays and onlays: A systematic review

Objectives. Large tooth substance losses are frequent in posterior teeth because of primary caries or aging restorations. Inlays and onlays are often the minimal invasive solution in such cases, but the efficacy of the composite and ceramic materials used is unknown. We performed a systematic review of randomized controlled trials comparing the efficacy of composite and ceramic inlays or onlays. Data sources. MEDLINE, Embase and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched without any restriction on date or language, as were references of eligible studies and ClinicalTrials.gov. Study selection. Eligible studies were randomized trials comparing the clinical efficacy of composite to ceramic inlays or onlays in adults with any clinical outcome for at least 6 months. From 172 records identified, we examined reports of 2 randomized controlled trials involving 138 inlays (no onlays evaluated) in 80 patients and exhibiting a high-risk of bias. Outcomes were clinical scores and major failures. The 3-year overall failure risk ratio was 2 [0.38-10.55] in favor of ceramic inlays although not statistically significant. The reported clinical scores (United States Public Health Services and Californian Dental Association) showed considerable heterogeneity between trials and could not be combined. Conclusions. We have very limited evidence that ceramics perform better than composite material for inlays in the short term. However, this result may not be valid in the long term, and other trials are needed. Trials should follow Federation dentaire internationale recommendations and enhance their methodology. Trials comparing composite and ceramic onlays are needed. (C) 2013 Academy of Dental Materials. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.