Purpose: The primary objective of this systematic review was to compare treatment outcomes of direct and indirect permanent restorations in endodontically treated teeth, and provide clinical suggestions for restoring teeth after endodontic treatment. Materials and Methods: Electronic databases (Medline, EMBASE, CENTRAL) and gray literature were screened for articles in English that reported on prospective and retrospective clinical studies of direct or indirect restorations after endodontic treatment with an observation period of at least 3 years. Primary outcomes were determined to be short-term (≤ 5 years) and medium-term (> 5 and ≤ 10 years) survival. Secondary outcomes included restorative and endodontic success of restored teeth. The quality of included studies and risk of bias were assessed using Cochrane Collaboration's tool for RCTs (randomized controlled trials), the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for cohort studies, and the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) methodology checklist for cross-sectional studies. The GRADE system was used for assessing collective strength of the overall body of evidence. Results: Of 2547 screened articles, only 9 (2 RCTs, 3 retrospective cohort studies, 3 cross-sectional studies) met the inclusion criteria, and 8 studies were used in the meta-analysis. In general, indirect restorations (mostly full crowns) showed higher 5-year survival (OR 0.28, 95% CI 0.19-0.43, p 0.00001) and 10-year survival (OR 0.20, 95% CI 0.12-0.31, p 0.00001) than direct restorations. However, there was no statistical difference in short-term (≤ 5-years) restorative success (OR 0.32, 95% CI 0.05-2.12, p = 0.24) and endodontic success (OR 0.88, 95% CI 0.72-1.08, p = 0.22). Conclusions: Based on current evidence, there is a weak recommendation for indirect restorations to restore endodontically treated teeth, especially for teeth with extensive coronal damage. Indirect restorations using mostly crowns have higher short-term (5-year) and medium-term (10-year) survival than do direct restorations using composite or amalgam (GRADE quality of evidence: low to moderate), but no difference in short-term (≤ 5 years) restorative success (low quality) and endodontic success (very low quality). There is a need for high-quality clinical trials, especially well-designed RCTs. Schlagwörter: endodontic treatment, direct restorations, indirect restorations, survival rates, success rates, apical periodontitis