BACKGROUND: The best treatment option for large caries in permanent posterior teeth is still a matter of uncertainty in dental literature. The authors conducted a network meta-analysis to address the challenges related to rehabilitation of these teeth. TYPES OF STUDIES REVIEWED: The authors selected prospective and retrospective studies that compared at least 2 different treatment alternatives for permanent teeth with a minimum of 5 years of follow-up. The authors searched databases from MEDLINE, Scopus, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science in October 2019 without language or year of publication restrictions. RESULTS: From 11,263 studies identified, 43 studies fulfilled the eligibility criteria and were included in the final review. Only 13 studies were randomized controlled trials and were classified as low risk of bias. Gold (annual failure rate of 0.29%) and metal ceramic (annual failure rate of 0.52%) crowns performed better for indirect restorations and direct resin composite performed better for direct restorations (annual failure rate of 2.19%). The most substantial comparisons were between feldspathic and glass ceramics, followed by direct resin composite and amalgam; there were no statistically significant differences between these interventions. Results of the pairwise meta-analysis showed mainly glass ionomer as significantly more prone to failure than amalgam and direct composite resin. CONCLUSIONS AND PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: Reference standard direct and indirect materials except for glass ionomer can be used for restorations of large posterior caries.
BACKGROUND: The best treatment option for large caries in permanent posterior teeth is still a matter of uncertainty in dental literature. The authors conducted a network meta-analysis to address the challenges related to rehabilitation of these teeth. TYPES OF STUDIES REVIEWED: The authors selected prospective and retrospective studies that compared at least 2 different treatment alternatives for permanent teeth with a minimum of 5 years of follow-up. The authors searched databases from MEDLINE, Scopus, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science in October 2019 without language or year of publication restrictions. RESULTS: From 11,263 studies identified, 43 studies fulfilled the eligibility criteria and were included in the final review. Only 13 studies were randomized controlled trials and were classified as low risk of bias. Gold (annual failure rate of 0.29%) and metal ceramic (annual failure rate of 0.52%) crowns performed better for indirect restorations and direct resin composite performed better for direct restorations (annual failure rate of 2.19%). The most substantial comparisons were between feldspathic and glass ceramics, followed by direct resin composite and amalgam; there were no statistically significant differences between these interventions. Results of the pairwise meta-analysis showed mainly glass ionomer as significantly more prone to failure than amalgam and direct composite resin. CONCLUSIONS AND PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: Reference standard direct and indirect materials except for glass ionomer can be used for restorations of large posterior caries.