Summary Review/Restorative Dentistry
Evidence-Based Dentistry (2003) 4, 31; doi:10.1038/sj.ebd.6400174
No evidence supports differences in clinical performance of ceramic inlays and other posterior restorations
When people require posterior restoration, are ceramic restorations more effective than other restorative materials?
Address for correspondence: Emma Tavender, Review Group Co-ordinator, Cochrane Oral Health Group, University Dental Hospital of Manchester, Higher Cambridge Street, Manchester M15 6FH, UK. E-mail: emma.tavender@man.ac.uk
Asbjørn Jokstad1
1Institute of Clinical Dentistry, Dental Faculty, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway
Hayashi M, Yeung CA.Ceramic inlays for restoring posterior teeth (Cochrane Review). The Cochrane Library 2003; Issue 1. Oxford: Update Software
Abstract
Data sources Sources were the Cochrane Oral Health Group Trials Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE and EMbase. Relevant journals and bibliographies of papers and review articles were hand-searched and experts and companies conducting clinical research on ceramic restorations were also contacted.
Study selection Randomised controlled trials (RCT) were included where longevity of ceramic inlays was compared with that of other posterior restorations.
Data extraction and synthesis Screening of possible studies and data extraction were independently conducted by two reviewers (MH and AY) using a specially designed chart. Authors of studies were contacted for additional information. The methodological quality of studies was assessed in duplicate using individual components. The Cochrane Oral Health Group statistical guidelines were followed and the results expressed as odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals for dichotomous outcomes.
Results Only one study was eventually included, which evaluated the clinical performance of 60 ceramic inlays and 20 gold inlays for 5 years. Seven of the 60 ceramic inlays and two of the 20 gold inlays failed at 5-year review. No ceramic inlays resulted in postoperative pain/discomfort after the treatment, but one gold inlay did. The power of the included study was not great enough to detect any important difference in longevity and postoperative pain or discomfort between ceramic and gold inlays.
Conclusions There is no strong evidence available to support any differences in the clinical performance of ceramic inlays and other posterior restorations. There are a limited number of well-designed clinical trials within this research area. Greater attention to the design and reporting of studies should be given to improve the study quality of ceramic restoration trials.
