Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorDhadwal, ASen_US
dc.contributor.authorHurst, Den_US
dc.date.accessioned2018-02-13T13:29:14Z
dc.date.available2017-10-07en_US
dc.date.issued2017-12-22en_US
dc.date.submitted2018-01-04T09:05:58.760Z
dc.identifier.other10.1038/sj.ebd.6401276
dc.identifier.urihttp://qmro.qmul.ac.uk/xmlui/handle/123456789/32329
dc.description.abstractData sourcesMedline, Embase, the Cochrane Oral Health Group's Trials Register and CENTRAL. Unpublished literature was searched on ClinicalTrials.gov, the National Research Register, and Pro-Quest Dissertation Abstracts and Thesis database. Hand searching of reference lists only.Study selectionRandomised controlled trials with a minimum of three years follow-up that compared direct to indirect inlays or onlays in posterior teeth. Primary outcome was failure (the need to replace or repair).Data extraction and synthesisTwo reviewers independently and in duplicate performed the study selection and two extracted data independently using a customised data extraction form. The unit of analysis was the restored tooth. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. Meta-analysis was conducted on two studies using the random-effects model.ResultsThree studies were included. Across these studies there were 239 participants in whom 424 restorations were placed. Two studies compared direct and indirect inlays and had follow-up of five and 11 years respectively. One study compared direct and indirect onlays with a follow-up of five years. The studies were at unclear or high risk of bias. For direct and indirect inlays, Relative Risk (RR) of failure after five years was 1.54 (95% Cl: 0.42, 5.58; p = 0.52) in one study and, in another was 0.95 (95% Cl: 0.34, 2.63; p = 0.92) over 11 years. For onlays there was also no statistically-significant difference in survival, though overall five-year survival was 87% (95% CI: 81-93%).ConclusionsThere is insufficient evidence to favour the direct or indirect technique for the restoration of posterior teeth with inlays and onlays.en_US
dc.format.extent121 - 122en_US
dc.languageengen_US
dc.language.isoenen_US
dc.relation.ispartofEvid Based Denten_US
dc.rightsAll rights reserved
dc.subjectDental Careen_US
dc.subjectDental Restoration, Permanenten_US
dc.subjectHumansen_US
dc.subjectInlaysen_US
dc.subjectMolaren_US
dc.titleNo difference in the long-term clinical performance of direct and indirect inlay/onlay composite restorations in posterior teeth.en_US
dc.typeArticle
dc.rights.holder2017. British Dental Association
dc.identifier.doi10.1038/sj.ebd.6401276en_US
pubs.author-urlhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29269819en_US
pubs.issue4en_US
pubs.notesNo embargoen_US
pubs.publication-statusPublisheden_US
pubs.volume18en_US


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record