The aim of this meta-analysis, based on individual participant data from several studies, was to investigate the influence of patient-, materials-, and tooth-related variables on the survival of posterior resin composite restorations. Following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, we conducted a search resulting in 12 longitudinal studies of direct posterior resin composite restorations with at least 5 years’ follow-up. Original datasets were still available, including placement/failure/censoring of restorations, restored surfaces, materials used, reasons for clinical failure, and caries-risk status. A database including all restorations was constructed, and a multivariate Cox regression method was used to analyze variables of interest [patient (age; gender; caries-risk status), jaw (upper; lower), number of restored surfaces, resin composite and adhesive materials, and use of glass-ionomer cement as base/liner (present or absent)]. The hazard ratios with respective 95% confidence intervals were determined, and annual failure rates were calculated for subgroups. Of all restorations, 2,816 (2,585 Class II and 231 Class I) were included in the analysis, of which 569 failed during the observation period. Main reasons for failure were caries and fracture. The regression analyses showed a significantly higher risk of failure for restorations in high-caries-risk individuals and those with a higher number of restored surfaces.
Andersson-WenckertIEvan DijkenJWKieriC (2004). Durability of extensive Class II open-sandwich restorations with a resin-modified glass ionomer cement after 6 years. Am J Dent17:43-50.
2.
BernardoMLuisHMartinMDLerouxBGRueTLeitãoJ. (2007). Survival and reasons for failure of amalgam versus composite posterior restorations placed in a randomized clinical trial. J Am Dent Assoc138:775-783.
3.
BottenbergPJacquetWAlaertsMKeulemansF (2009). A prospective randomized clinical trial of one bis-GMA-based and two ormocer-based composite restorative systems in class II cavities: five-year results. J Dent37:198-203.
4.
Da Rosa RodolphoPADonassolloTACenciMSLoguercioADMoraesRRBronkhorstEM. (2011). 22-year clinical evaluation of the performance of two posterior composites with different filler characteristics. Dent Mater27:955-963.
5.
De MunckJVan LanduytKLCoutinhoEPoitevinAPeumansMLambrechtsP. (2005). Fatigue resistance of dentin/composite interfaces with an additional intermediate elastic layer. Eur J Oral Sci113:77-82.
6.
DemarcoFFCorrêaMBCenciMSMoraesRROpdamNJ (2012). Longevity of posterior composite restorations: not only a matter of materials. Dent Mater28:87-101.
7.
FagundesTCBarataTJCarvalhoCAFrancoEBvan DijkenJWNavarroMF (2009). Clinical evaluation of two packable posterior composites: a five-year follow-up. J Am Dent Assoc140:447-454.
8.
GaenglerPHoyerIMontagR (2001). Clinical evaluation of posterior composite restorations: the 10-year report. J Adhes Dent3:185-194.
9.
HeintzeSDRoussonV (2012). Clinical effectiveness of direct class II restorations - a meta-analysis. J Adhes Dent14:407-431.
KöhlerBRasmussonCGOdmanP (2000). A five-year clinical evaluation of Class II composite resin restorations. J Dent28:111-116.
12.
KrämerNGarcia-GodoyFReineltCFeilzerAJFrankenbergerR (2011). Nanohybrid vs. fine hybrid composite in extended Class II cavities after six years. Dent Mater27:455-464.
13.
LindbergAvan DijkenJWLindbergM (2007). Nine-year evaluation of a polyacid-modified resin composite/resin composite open sandwich technique in Class II cavities. J Dent35:124-129.
14.
LundinSAKochG (1999). Class I and II posterior composite resin restorations after 5 and 10 years. Swed Dent J23:165-171.
15.
LynchCDOpdamNJHickelRBruntonPAGurganSKakabouraA. (2014). Academy of Operative Dentistry European Section: guidance on the use of resin composites for direct restoration of posterior teeth. J Dent42:377-383.
16.
MairLH (1998). Ten-year clinical assessment of three posterior resin composites and two amalgams. Quintessence Int29:483-490.
17.
ManhartJChenHHammGHickelR (2004). Buonocore Memorial Lecture. Review of the clinical survival of direct and indirect restorations in posterior teeth of the permanent dentition. Oper Dent29:481-508.
18.
MoherDLiberatiATetzlaffJAltmanDG (2009). Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med6:e1000097.
19.
NordboHLeirskarJvon der FehrFR (1998). Saucer-shaped cavity preparations for posterior approximal resin composite restorations: observations up to 10 years. Quintessence Int29:5-11.
20.
OpdamNJBronkhorstEMRoetersJMLoomansBA (2007). Longevity and reasons for failure of sandwich and total-etch posterior composite resin restorations. J Adhes Dent9:469-475.
21.
OpdamNJBronkhorstEMLoomansBAHuysmansMC (2010). 12-year survival of composite vs. amalgam restorations. J Dent Res89:1063-1067.
22.
PallesenUQvistV (2003). Composite resin fillings and inlays. An 11-year evaluation. Clin Oral Investig7:71-79.
23.
PallesenUvan DijkenJWHalkenJHallonstenALHöigaardR (2013). Longevity of posterior resin composite restorations in permanent teeth in Public Dental Health Service: a prospective 8 years follow up. J Dent41:297-306.
24.
PerdigãoJLambrechtsPVan MeerbeekBBraemMYildizEYücelT. (1996). The interaction of adhesive systems with human dentin. Am J Dent9:167-173.
25.
RaskinAMichotte-TheallBVrevenJWilsonNH (1999). Clinical evaluation of a posterior composite 10-year report. J Dent27:13-19.
26.
RasmussonCGLundinSA (1995). Class II restorations in six different posterior composite resins: five-year results. Swed Dent J19:173-182.
27.
Van de SandeFHOpdamNJRodolphoPACorreaMBDemarcoFFCenciMS (2013). Patient risk factors’ influence on survival of posterior composites. J Dent Res92(7 Suppl):78S-83S.
28.
van DijkenJW (2000). Direct resin composite inlays/onlays: an 11 year follow-up. J Dent28:299-306.
29.
van DijkenJW (2010). Durability of resin composite restorations in high C-factor cavities: a 12-year follow-up. J Dent38:469-474.
30.
van DijkenJWPallesenU (2011a). Clinical performance of a hybrid resin composite with and without an intermediate layer of flowable resin composite: a 7-year evaluation. Dent Mater27:150-156.
31.
van DijkenJWPallesenU (2011b). Four-year clinical evaluation of Class II nano-hybrid resin composite restorations bonded with a one-step self-etch and a two-step etch-and-rinse adhesive. J Dent39:16-25.
32.
van DijkenJWSunnegårdh-GrönbergK (2006). Fiber-reinforced packable resin composites in Class II cavities. J Dent34:763-769.
33.
Van NieuwenhuysenJPD’HooreWCarvalhoJQvistV (2003). Long-term evaluation of extensive restorations in permanent teeth. J Dent31:395-405.
34.
WassellRWWallsAWMcCabeJF (2000). Direct composite inlays versus conventional composite restorations: 5-year follow-up. J Dent28:375-382.
35.
WilderADJrMayKNJrBayneSCTaylorDFLeinfelderKF (1999). Seventeen-year clinical study of ultraviolet-cured posterior composite Class I and II restorations. J Esthet Dent11:135-142.
36.
WillemsGLambrechtsPBraemMCelisJPVanherleG (1992). A classification of dental composites according to their morphological and mechanical characteristics. Dent Mater8:310-319.
