A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of the Success of Resin Composite Restorations

Aim: This review examines the studies on resin composites within the past decade and evaluates the materials’ application methods and success through Fédération Dentaire Internationale (FDI) scores. Materials and Methods: Search results from three databases (a total of 3295 studies) were transferred to Mendeley Desktop (Mendeley, London, UK) software and deduplicated (2638 studies). Eight studies were included in this meta-analysis after scanning the title, abstract, and full-text screening. Risk of bias analysis was performed using the Cochrane Handbook tool. Shapiro–Wilk, Kolmogorov–Smirnov, Kruskal–Wallis, and post hoc Tamhane’s T2 were used for statistical analysis. Results: Conventional composite’s surface staining FDI score was higher than flowable and silorane composites (no difference between these two). Also, conventional composite has the highest score in terms of staining. Conventional composite + two-step self-etch adhesive and bulk fill composite + two-step self-etch adhesive have lower FDI scores in marginal staining. In noncarious cervical lesions (NCCL), conventional composite + two-step total-etch adhesive has a higher score than flowable composite + two-step self-etch adhesive. Flowable composite + two-step self-etch adhesive and conventional composite + single-step self-etch adhesive have the highest FDI scores for marginal adaptation (no statistical difference between them). Conventional composite + two-step self-etch adhesive and bulk fill composite + two-step self-etch have the lowest scores (no statistical difference between them). For recurrence of caries, all groups have Score 1, the best score, and there is no significant difference between them. Conclusions: Each restorative material and adhesive system has different advantages, and the practitioner must choose the most appropriate.