Nanofilled/nanohybrid and hybrid resin-based composite in patients with direct restorations in posterior teeth: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Objective: A systematic review and a meta-analysis were performed to answer the following research question: Are there differences in the color match and surface texture of nanofilled/nanohybrid and hybrid composite in patients with direct posterior restorations?
Data: Randomized clinical trials that compared nanofilled/nanohybrid and hybrid composite in direct restoration in posterior teeth were included. For the analysis of the bias the risk of bias tool (RoB) was used. Meta-analyses of different pairs (nanofilled vs. hybrid and nanohybrid vs. hybrid composite) were conducted for surface texture and color match and other secondary outcomes at different follow-ups, using a random effects model. Heterogeneity was assessed with the Cochran Q test and I ² statistics. GRADE was used to assess the quality of the evidence.
Sources: A search was performed in PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, LILACS, BBO, Cochrane Library and SIGLE, without restrictions. IADR abstracts (2001-2019), unpublished and ongoing trials registries, dissertations and theses were also searched.
Study Selection: 28 studies remained. No study was considered to be at low RoB; four studies were judged to have high RoB, and the remaining were judged to have unclear RoB.
Results: For the primary and secondary outcomes variables no significant differences were detected between nanofilled/nanohybrid restorations and hybrid composite restorations in any of the study follow-ups (p > 0.08). The body of evidence for surface texture and color match was classified as moderate or low.
Conclusion: No evidence of difference was found between nanofilled/nanohybrid and hybrid composite in any of the clinical parameters evaluated.
(Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)