Systematic reviews in restorative dentistry: discussing relevant aspects.

OBJECTIVE

This article aims to discuss key aspects of systematic reviews (SR) focusing on the improvement of the conduct and reporting.

METHODS

Important aspects of SRs, such as prospective registration of the review protocol, basic structure, inclusion criteria, use of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) Statement, confidence in the results and future directions are discussed. To determine relevant aspects, a search was conducted without date limitations in PubMed (October 15th, 2017) to identify SRs written in English evaluating clinical performance of direct composite resin restoration in permanent posterior teeth or comparing direct composite resin with other material/techniques. The quality of SRs included was assessed using the Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews 2 tool.

RESULTS

Fifteen SRs were included. The overall confidence in the results of SRs was classified as critically low. Some aspects should be highlighted: SRs of in vitro studies are an important tool in restorative dentistry, and initiatives such as the PRISMA Statement and PROSPERO should be considered a standard code of practice.

CONCLUSIONS

The compliance with and awareness of the discussed aspects may be a significant feature of the improvement of SR quality in the dentistry.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

Initiatives such as the PRISMA Statement and PROSPERO should be taken in account by systematic reviewers in dentistry to improve the conduct and reporting of SRs, and to make their reviews are more clinically helpful.