Ceramic materials have similar short term survival rates to other materials on posterior teeth.
METHODS
PubMed, Cochrane and Picarta databases and references of retrieved articles were searched from 2001-2009.


METHODS
RCTs, CCTs and case series which compared Class I and Class II ceramic inlay restorations in permanent premolar and molar teeth, other posterior restorations were included.


METHODS
Two authors reviewed all abstracts independently, compared results and reached consensus on inclusion/ exclusion through discussion. Quality assessment of the studies was carried out using Hayashi's criteria.


RESULTS
Three studies (two RCTs, one CCR) were included. All three compared ceramic materials to composite resin materials. The outcomes were longevity of the restorations (USPHS criteria in two studies and CDA in one), postoperative sensitivity and colour match. None of the included studies reported sufficient data to calculate the corrected survival rate, so the conclusion that there was no difference between ceramic and other posterior restorations could not be reappraised. Neither of the two RCTs reporting postoperative sensitivity found a difference between the ceramic or composite restorations confirming the previous reviews findings. For aesthetic quality, only the CCR results were considered sufficiently reliable, with no significant difference being found between the materials.


CONCLUSIONS
Ceramic materials perform as well as alternative restorative materials for use as inlay restorations. However, a lack of long-term data means that this conclusion can only be supported for periods up to one year for longevity and 57 months for colour match.
Department of Restorative Dentistry, Royal London Dental Hospital, New Road, Whitechapel, London, UK.
Simon
S
Critchlow