Skip to main content

Table 1 Characteristics of the included studies

From: Onlays/partial crowns versus full crowns in restoring posterior teeth: a systematic review and meta-analysis

No.

Author (year)

Materials / Methods

Cement

Country

Investigation Period

Evaluation criteria

Follow-up period (y)

Age range (mean)

Study type

No of Patients

Dropout of restorations (%)

No of onlays / crowns

Failures of onlays / crowns

Defects of onlays / crowns

score

1

Li et al. (2015) [27]

IPS Emax press / pressable PFM (gold) / casting

Adhesive

China

2010.2-2010.11

customized criteria

3

21-88 (42)

PC

94

0

46 / 80

1 / 2

2 / 5

8

2

Barnes et al. (2010) [33]

Finess all-ceramic / pressable

Adhesive

NR

NR

Modified Rage criteria

3

NR

prospective study

NR

31.60%

19 / 9

1 / 0

1 / 0

6

3

Jongsma et al. (2012) [34]

Neco / photopolymerized

Adhesive / Conventional

Nethelans

NR

customized criteria

3

29-70 (53)

PC

45

0

5 / 86

0 / 7

0 / 15

7

4

Fabbri et al. (2014) [35]

IPS Emax press / pressable

Adhesive

Italy

2006.6-2010.12

Modified CDA criteria

3

19-71

retrospective study

NR

0

62 / 197

1 / 7

1 / 8

7

5

Li et al. (2019) [36]

IPS Emax cad / CAD/CAM

Adhesive

China

2016.5-2016.12

Modified USPHS

1

67.5

RCT

66

5.30%

38 / 40

0 / 0

3 / 5

/

6

Fotiadou et al. (2021) [37]

IPS Emax press / pressable

Adhesive

German

2010.1-2014.1

FDI criteria

6.6

26-84 (59)

RC

145

0

179 / 5

7 / 1

NR

7

  1. USPHS United States Public Health Service, CDA California Dental Association, NR not reported, PC prospective cohort, RC retrospective cohort, Score the value of Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS)