The aim of this meta-analysis, based on individual participant data from several studies, was to investigate the influence of patient-, materials-, and tooth-related variables on the survival of posterior resin composite restorations. Following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, we conducted a search resulting in 12 longitudinal studies of direct posterior resin composite restorations with at least 5 years’ follow-up. Original datasets were still available, including placement/failure/censoring of restorations, restored surfaces, materials used, reasons for clinical failure, and caries-risk status. A database including all restorations was constructed, and a multivariate Cox regression method was used to analyze variables of interest [patient (age; gender; caries-risk status), jaw (upper; lower), number of restored surfaces, resin composite and adhesive materials, and use of glass-ionomer cement as base/liner (present or absent)]. The hazard ratios with respective 95% confidence intervals were determined, and annual failure rates were calculated for subgroups. Of all restorations, 2,816 (2,585 Class II and 231 Class I) were included in the analysis, of which 569 failed during the observation period. Main reasons for failure were caries and fracture. The regression analyses showed a significantly higher risk of failure for restorations in high-caries-risk individuals and those with a higher number of restored surfaces.

Background: Tooth wear is a multifactorial condition, leading to the irreversible loss of dental hard tissues. The availability of an unambiguous, universally applicable assessment protocol remains lacking.Objectives: The goal of the authors is to develop a set of diagnostic criteria for the assessment of tooth wear (DC‐TW). A two‐step approach will be used to achieve this objective: (1) to develop a preliminary beta version of the DC‐TW, based on the authors' clinical experience and their shared expertise and supported by a narrative review of the existing literature, and (2) to develop the final DC‐TW, with input from a larger group of experts using an international Delphi process. This paper relates to the first step.Methods: The authors outlined the components that should be incorporated into the DC‐TW. The literature search was performed to investigate if their concept was in line with the available literature. The search was conducted to identify eligible publications from inception to July 11, 2022. Two authors independently screened all publications, and differences in judgements were resolved through a consensus procedure.Results: The search yielded 5362 publications, resulting in the final inclusion of 383. These publications were divided into four main topics: (1) nomenclature/taxonomies; (2) self‐report tools; (3) clinical assessment tools; and (4) clinical decision‐making.Conclusions: The information from the publications was used and fused with the clinical experience and shared expertise of the authors to contribute to the development of a preliminary beta version of the DC‐TW.