Developing meaningful systematic review of CAD/CAM reconstructions and fiber-reinforced composites

Objective: Clinical literature was examined for evidence supporting use of CAD/CAM reconstructions and fiber‐reinforced materials. Materials and methods: Potential evidence was identified via databases [PubMed; EMBASE (R) Drugs & Pharmacology; Center for Reviews and Dissemination, University of York; Cochrane Library], hand search of non‐indexed literature, secondary reference searches, and personal contacts with clinical trial PI's. Search terms included: dental restorations; CAD/CAM; CEREC; LAVA; CERCON; Procera; inlay/onlay; dental prosthesis; fiber‐reinforced composite (FRC). Results: Two randomized‐controlled clinical trials were identified as examined in one Cochrane Collaboration review relevant to CAD/CAM inlays. One systematic review of 15 CAD/CAM inlay studies was examined. Six studies were identified of three commercial FRC endodontic posts and eight reported on FRC use for fixed denture prostheses. Fifteen ongoing prospective trials were identified studying CAD/CAM fabricated zirconia‐based prostheses. A total of 76 papers were referenced including those related to use of in vitro measures as evidence. Conclusions: Review of the Cochrane analysis raised concerns that typical RCT protocols may prove insufficient for stratification of confounding variables (patient, practitioner, material) when treatment outcomes are primarily prosthesis‐ or material‐based (not patient‐based, e.g., as in fracture). RCT designs are most straightforward when treatment outcomes are patient‐based (e.g., soft tissue changes). When treatment responses are material‐based, controls also become difficult to define and studies become tests of equivalency/superiority; where well‐stratified cohort designs are likely preferred. Large numbers of independent cohort studies support the use of CAD/CAM ceramic inlay/onlay restorations and crowns but many complications inhibit the application of high‐level systematic review. Except perhaps for fiber‐based endodontic posts, the clinical FRC literature appears insufficient for expert review. Single in vitro measures cannot currently serve as evidence for clinical practice, except in limited cases of simple function (e.g., impression material accuracy). Batteries of in vitro measures are often applied during materials development but cannot substitute for clinical study.