Survival rate of ceramic inlay and onlay restorations in posterior teeth with one-surface or multi-surface after a 10-year follow-up: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Abstract
Background/Aim. A large number of studies have been conducted on the survival rate of ceramic single tooth restorations, but few studies have discussed the influence of the number of restoration surfaces on their survival rate. This study aimed to evaluate the survival rate of ceramic inlay and onlay restorations in posterior teeth with one-surface or multi-surface after a 10-year follow-up. Methods. PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, Embase, and Wanfang databases were searched for articles published by July 31, 2016. Randomized controlled trials and non-randomized trials were collected and patients with posterior teeth defect were included. Publication bias and sensitivity analysis were also assessed. Results. Five studies comprising 6,720 cases were included in this meta-analysis. The results indicated that the survival rate of ceramic inlay and onlay restorations with two-surface was significantly higher than that of one-surface restorations (within 10 years) [hazard ratio (HR) = 2.11; 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.33–3.36, p = 0.002], and the survival rate of three-surface restorations was higher than that of two-surface ones (HR = 2.50; 95% CI = 1.36–4.59, p = 0.003). Conclusion. The current meta-analysis shows that the increase in the ceramic inlay and onlay restoration surfaces increases their survival rate within a 10-year period.
References
Boushell LW, Ritter AV. Ceramic inlays: A case presentation and lessons learned from the literature. J Esthet Restor Dent 2009; 21(2): 77–87.
Bergman MA. The clinical performance of ceramic inlays: A review. Aust Dent J 1999; 44(3): 157–68.
Tyas MJ. Dental amalgam ‒ What are the alternatives? Int Dent J 1994); 44(3): 303–8.
Roulet JF. Benefits and disadvantages of tooth-coloured alter-natives to amalgam. J Dent 1997; 25(6): 459–73.
Manhart J, Chen H, Hamm G, Hickel R. Buonocore Memorial Lecture. Review of the clinical survival of direct and indirect restorations in posterior teeth of the permanent dentition. Oper Dent 2004; 29(5): 481–508.
El-Mowafy O, Brochu JF. Longevity and clinical performance of IPS-Empress ceramic restorations ‒ a literature review. J Can Dent Assoc 2002; 68(4): 233–7.
Sjögren G, Lantto R, Granberg A, Sundström BO, Tillberg A. Clinical examination of leucite-reinforced glass-ceramic crowns (Empress) in general practice: A retrospective study. Int J Prosthodont 1999; 12(2): 122–8.
Thordrup M, Isidor F, Horsted-Bindslev P. A prospective clinical study of indirect and direct composite and ceramic inlays: ten-year results. Quintessence Int 2006; 37(2): 139–44.
Pol CW, Kalk W. A systematic review of ceramic inlays in pos-terior teeth: an update. Int J Prosthodont 2011; 24(6): 566–75.
Frankenberger R, Krämer N, Appelt A, Lohbauer U, Naumann M, Roggendorf MJ. Chairside vs. labside ceramic inlays: effect of temporary restoration and adhesive luting on enamel cracks and marginal integrity. Dent Mater 2011; 27(9): 892–8.
Magne P, Paranhos MP, Schlichting LH. Influence of material se-lection on the risk of inlay fracture during pre-cementation functional occlusal tapping. Dent Mater 2011; 27: 109–13.
Magne P, Knezevic A. Thickness of CAD-CAM composite resin overlays influences fatigue resistance of endodontically treated premolars. Dent Mater 2009; 25(10): 1264–8.
Frankenberger R, Reinelt C, Petschelt A, Kramer N. Operator vs. material influence on clinical outcome of bonded ceramic in-lays. Dent Mater 2009; 25(8): 960–8.
Schulz P, Johansson A, Arvidson K. A retrospective study of Mi-rage ceramic inlays over up to 9 years. Int J Prosthodont 2003; 16(5): 510–4.
Stoll R, Cappel I, Jablonski-Momeni A, Pieper K, Stachniss V. Survival of inlays and partial crowns made of IPS empress af-ter a 10-year observation period and in relation to various treatment parameters. Oper Dent 2007; 32(6): 556–63.
van Dijken JW, Hasselrot L. A prospective 15-year evaluation of extensive dentin-enamel-bonded pressed ceramic coverages. Dent Mater 2010; 26(9): 929–39.
Horn HR. Porcelain laminate veneers bonded to etched enam-el. Dent Clin North Am 1983; 27(4): 671‒84.
Stang A. Critical evaluation of the Newcastle-Ottawa scale for assessing the quality of nonrandomized studies in meta-analyses. Eur J Epidemiol 2010; 25(9): 603–5.
Colditz GA, Burdick E, Mosteller F. Heterogeneity in meta-analysis of data from epidemiologicstudies: a commentary. Am J Epidemiol.1995; 142: 371–82.
Higgins JP, Thompson SG. Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysis. Stat Med 2002; 21(11): 1539–58.
Beier US, Kapferer I, Burtscher D, Giesinger JM, Dumfahrt H. Clinical performance of all-ceramic inlay and onlay restora-tions in posterior teeth. Int J Prothodont 2012; 25(4): 395‒402
Reiss B, Walther W. Clinical long-term results and 10-year Kaplan-Meier analysis of Cerec restorations. Int J Comput Dent 2000; 3(1): 9‒23. (English, German)
Collares K, Corrêa MB, Laske M, Kramer E, Reiss B, Moraes RR, et al. A practice-based research network on the survival of ce-ramic inlay/onlay restorations. Dent Mater 2016; 32(5): 687‒94.
Otto T, De Nisco S. Computer-aided direct ceramic restora-tions: a 10-year prospective clinical study of Cerec CAD/CAM inlays and onlays. Int J Prosthodont 2002; 15(2): 122‒8.
Haas M, Arnetzl G, Pertl R, Polansky R, Smetan M. Cerec vs la-boratory Inlays. In: Mormann W, editor. CAD/CIM in Aes-thetic Dentistry. Chicago: Quintessence; 1996. p. 299‒312.
Posselt A1, Kerschbaum T. Longevity of 2328 chairside Cerec inlays and onlays. Int J Comput Dent 2003; 6(3): 231‒48.
Clelland NL, Warchol N, Kerby RE, Katsube N, Seghi RR. Influ-ence of interface surface conditions on indentation failure of simulated bonded ceramic onlays. Dent Mater 2006; 22(2): 99‒106.
Martin N, Jedynakiewicz NM. Clinical performance of CEREC ceramic inlays: a systematic review. Dent Mater 1999; 15(1): 54‒61.