Purpose: To meta-analyze the literature on the clinical performance of Class V restorations to assess the factors
that influence retention, marginal integrity, and marginal discoloration of cervical lesions restored with composite resins, glass-ionomer-cement–based materials [glass-ionomer cement (GIC) and resin-modified glass ionomers (RMGICs)], and polyacid-modified resin composites (PMRC).
Materials and Methods: The English literature was searched (MEDLINE and SCOPUS) for prospective clinical trials on cervical restorations with an observation period of at least 18 months. The studies had to report about
retention, marginal discoloration, marginal integrity, and marginal caries and include a description of the operative technique (beveling of enamel, roughening of dentin, type of isolation). Eighty-one studies involving 185 experiments for 47 adhesives matched the inclusion criteria. The statistical analysis was carried out by using
the following linear mixed model: log (−log (Y /100)) = β + α log(T ) + error with β = log(λ), where β is a summary measure of the non-linear deterioration occurring in each experiment, including a random study effect.
Results: On average, 12.3% of the cervical restorations were lost, 27.9% exhibited marginal discoloration, and
34.6% exhibited deterioration of marginal integrity after 5 years. The calculation of the clinical index was 17.4%
of failures after 5 years and 32.3% after 8 years. A higher variability was found for retention loss and marginal
discoloration. Hardly any secondary caries lesions were detected, even in the experiments with a follow-up
time longer than 8 years. Restorations placed using rubber-dam in teeth whose dentin was roughened showed
a statistically significantly higher retention rate than those placed in teeth with unprepared dentin or without
rubber-dam (p < 0.05). However, enamel beveling had no influence on any of the examined variables. Significant
differences were found between pairs of adhesive systems and also between pairs of classes of adhesive systems.
One-step self-etching had a significantly worse clinically index than two-step self-etching and three-step
etch-and-rinse (p = 0.026 and p = 0.002, respectively).
Conclusion: The clinical performance is significantly influenced by the type of adhesive system and/or the adhesive class to which the system belongs. Whether the dentin/enamel is roughened or not and whether rubberdam isolation is used or not also significantly influenced the clinical performance. Composite resin restorations placed with two-step self-etching and three-step etch-and-rinse adhesive systems should be preferred over onestep self-etching adhesive systems, GIC-based materials, and PMRCs.