Cochrane · intervention · CD003450

Ceramic inlays for restoring posterior teeth

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2003 · Cochrane Library

Oral Health Dental cariesAMSTAR 2: not assessed

Full textEvery question was extracted from the full review (methods and results), not only its Summary of Findings table.

Questions

current version

GRADE rated

No studies

Included studies

as reported

No studies 4 · 66.7%Ungraded 2 · 33.3%Very low 0 · 0%Low 0 · 0%Moderate 0 · 0%High 0 · 0%

Ungraded means an effect was reported without a GRADE rating; it is not a gap. No studies means the review found nothing to answer the question. The six categories are a display order, not a score.

Review question

Element	Planned (methods)	Found (results)
Population	Adults who require restorative treatment in posterior teeth	20 adults (9 males, 11 females; ages 23 to 56) with a history of Class II fillings in mandibular premolar and molar teeth; university setting, Sweden
Intervention	All types of ceramic inlays for restorative treatment of permanent posterior teeth	Ceramic inlays (Mirage, Empress and Cerec combined) (n=60 restorations)
Comparison	Gold inlay; Composite resin; Composite resin inlay; Amalgam	Gold inlays (n=20 restorations)
Outcomes	Longevity (failure rate of restorations at final observation); Postoperative pain/discomfort (presence or absence within 1 month); Aesthetic satisfaction (colour match rated by USPHS or CDA criteria)	Failure rate at 5 years (n=1); Postoperative sensitivity (n=1); Aesthetic satisfaction (not obtainable, n=0)
Study designs	Randomised controlled trials (RCTs); non-randomised and uncontrolled clinical trials excluded	1 RCT (Molin 2000), split-mouth design
Timing	Not specified	5-year observation period (evaluated at 1, 3 and 5 years)

Search date: 2001. Databases: Cochrane Oral Health Group Trials Register; Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); MEDLINE; EMBASE

Questions and results

Ceramic inlays (all types) vs Gold inlay

Population: Adults who require restorative treatment in posterior teeth

3 questions

Outcome	Effect	Evidence	Status / GRADE
Postoperative sensitivity/pain 1 week same question in other reviews	Postoperative sensitivity was evaluated 1 week after placement. No teeth with ceramic inlays were found to have postoperative sensitivity, while one tooth with gold inlay presented sensitivity, which lasted more than 2…	1 study · 20 participants	Ungraded
Aesthetic satisfaction (colour match) same question in other reviews	Information on aesthetic satisfaction could not be obtained from this study as it did not use the tooth-coloured restorations as the control group.	0 studies	No studies
Failure rate (longevity) at 5 years 5 years same question in other reviews	OR 1.12 [0.08, 15.0]	1 study · 20 participants	Ungraded

Ceramic inlays (all types) vs Composite resin (direct restoration)

Population: Adults who require restorative treatment in posterior teeth

1 question

Outcome	Effect	Evidence	Status / GRADE
Outcome NR same question in other reviews	No eligible randomised controlled trial comparing ceramic inlays with composite resin (direct) restorations was identified; this planned comparison could not be evaluated.	0 studies	No studies

Ceramic inlays (all types) vs Composite resin inlay

Population: Adults who require restorative treatment in posterior teeth

1 question

Outcome	Effect	Evidence	Status / GRADE
Outcome NR same question in other reviews	One randomised controlled trial (Gladys 1995) compared ceramic and resin composite inlays over 3 years, but it was excluded because the study design (parallel-group or split-mouth) was not clearly described; no…	0 studies	No studies

Ceramic inlays (all types) vs Amalgam

Population: Adults who require restorative treatment in posterior teeth

1 question

Outcome	Effect	Evidence	Status / GRADE
Outcome NR same question in other reviews	No eligible randomised controlled trial comparing ceramic inlays with amalgam restorations was identified; this planned comparison could not be evaluated.	0 studies	No studies