ObjectiveTo systematically review the clinical efficacy of indirect and direct resin composite restorations in permanent posterior teeth.MethodsThe Cochrane Library (Issue 12, 2016), PubMed, EMbase, WanFang Data, CBM and CNKI databases were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) about indirect and direct resin composite restorations in permanent posterior teeth from inception to December 2016. Two reviewers independently screened literature, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of included studies. Then, meta-analysis was performed by RevMan 5.3 software.ResultsNine RCTs involving 671 patients and 1 012 teeth (544 in indirect restorations group and 468 in direct restorations group) were included. The results of meta-analysis indicated that: there was no significant difference in the overall failure rate between direct and indirect resin composite restorations (RR=0.91, 95%CI 0.52 to 1.58, P=0.73). In further analysing the reasons of failure, there were no significant differences between both groups on fractured restorations (RR=1.71, 95%CI 0.76 to 3.84, P=0.19) and fractured remaining cusp (RR=1.27, 95%CI 0.62 to 2.59, P=0.52). In addition, the secondary caries in the direct composite restorations group was higher than that in the indirect group (RR=0.33, 95%CI 0.13 to 0.85, P=0.02). Subgroup analysis according to molars and premolars restored indicated that there was no statistical difference in the restorations failure rate between two groups.ConclusionThe clinical efficacy of indirect and direct resin composite restorations in permanent posterior teeth are equivalent. Due to the limitation of quality and quantity of the included RCTs, the above conclusions are needed to be verified by more high quality and large sample RCTs.