Abstract:Background: Endodontic treatment involves removal of the dental pulp and its replacement by a root canal filling. Restoration of root filled teeth can be challenging due to structural differences between vital and non-vital root-filled teeth. Direct restoration involves placement of a restorative material e.g. amalgam or composite, directly into the tooth. Indirect restorations consist of cast metal or ceramic (porcelain) crowns. The choice of restoration depends on the amount of remaining tooth, and may influence durability and cost. The decision to use a post and core in addition to the crown is clinician driven. The comparative clinical performance of crowns or conventional fillings used to restore root-filled teeth is unknown. This review updates the original, which was published in 2012. Objectives: To assess the effects of restoration of endodontically treated teeth (with or without post and core) by crowns versus conventional filling materials. Search methods: We searched the following databases: the Cochrane Oral Health Group's Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE via OVID, EMBASE via OVID, CINAHL via EBSCO, LILACS via BIREME. We also searched the reference lists of articles and ongoing trials registries.There were no restrictions regarding language or date of publication. The search is up-to-date as of 26 March 2015. Selection criteria: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi-randomised controlled trials in participants with permanent teeth that have undergone endodontic treatment. Single full coverage crowns compared with any type of filling materials for direct restoration or indirect partial restorations (e.g. inlays and onlays). Comparisons considered the type of post and core used (cast or prefabricated post), if any. Data collection and analysis: Two review authors independently extracted data from the included trial and assessed its risk of bias. We carried out data analysis using the 'treatment as allocated' patient population, expressing estimates of intervention effect for dichotomous data as risk ratios, with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Main results: We included one trial, which was judged to be at high risk of performance, detection and attrition bias. The 117 participants with a root-filled, premolar tooth restored with a carbon fibre post, were randomised to either a full coverage metal-ceramic crown or direct adhesive composite restoration. None experienced a catastrophic failure (i.e. when the restoration cannot be repaired), although only 104 teeth were included in the final, three-year assessment. There was no clear difference between the crown and composite group and the composite only group for non-catastrophic failures of the restoration (1/54 versus 3/53; RR 0.33; 95% CI 0.04 to 3.05) or failures of the post (2/54 versus 1/53; RR 1.96; 95% CI 0.18 to 21.01) at three years. The quality of the evidence for these outcomes is very low. There was no evidence available for any of our secondary outcomes: patient satisfaction and quality of life, incidence or recurrence of caries, periodontal health status, and costs. Authors' conclusions: There is insufficient evidence to assess the effects of crowns compared to conventional fillings for the restoration of root-filled teeth. Until more evidence becomes available, clinicians should continue to base decisions about how to restore root-filled teeth on their own clinical experience, whilst taking into consideration the individual circumstances and preferences of their patients.

What are the emerging trends in dental composite materials in permanent teeth with occlusal cavities: self-adhesive vs traditional?

Self-adhesive flowable composite resins and flowable composite resins in permanent teeth with occlusal cavities: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Clinical Behavior of Self-Adhesive Composite Resin Restorations: Literature Review

Trends in restorative composites research: what is in the future?

Physical Properties and Clinical Performance of Short Fiber Reinforced Resin-based Composite in Posterior Dentition: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Clinical effectiveness of direct anterior restorations—A meta-analysis

Characterization of Contemporary Conventional, Bulk-fill, and Self-adhesive Resin Composite Materials

Short fiber‐reinforced composite restorations: A review of the current literature

Effect of different adhesive systems on dental defects and sensitivity to teeth in composite resin restoration: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Single crowns versus conventional fillings for the restoration of root filled teeth

Single crowns versus conventional fillings for the restoration of root-filled teeth

A Comparative Clinical Study of the Self-Adhering Flowable Composite Resin Vertise Flow and the Traditional Flowable Composite Resin Premise Flowable

Comparative clinical evaluation between self‐adhesive and conventional bulk‐fill composites in class II cavities: A 1‐year randomized controlled clinical study

One-year results of a novel self-adhesive bulk-fill restorative and a conventional bulk-fill composite in class II cavities—a randomized clinical split-mouth study

Randomized prospective clinical trial of class II restorations using flowable bulk-fill resin composites: 4-year follow-up

Clinical evaluation of posterior flowable short fiber-reinforced composite restorations without proximal surface coverage

Longevity of restorations in direct composite resin: literature review

Composite materials: composition, properties and clinical applications. A literature review

Single crown vs. composite for glass fiber post-retained restorations: an 8-year randomized clinical trial

Preliminary Clinical Evaluation of Short Fiber-Reinforced Composite Resin in Posterior Teeth: 12-Months Report