Aim: The aim of this systematic review is to compare the bonding performance of indirect restoration with the reinforced immediate dentin sealing (IDS) method as opposed to the conventional IDS method. Materials and methods: A literature search was conducted in PubMed, Cochrane, and EBSCOHost up to January 31st 2022, accompanied by a hand search in Google Scholar. Inclusion criteria involved studies comparing conventional IDS and reinforced IDS protocol and evaluating various parameters influencing the bonding performance, such as type of indirect restoration, etching protocol, cavity design, tooth surface preparation, method of oral cavity simulation, and processing after luting. The quality of six included studies was appraised using CRIS guidelines. Results: A total of 29 publications was identified, and 6 of them fulfilled the inclusion criteria. All of the included studies were in vitro studies. The predetermined data were independently extracted and evaluated by four reviewers. It was observed that most of the studies showed an improvement in bond strength with reinforced IDS when compared with conventional IDS. Also, etch-and-rinse and 2-step self-etch adhesive protocols have shown better bonding performance than universal adhesive systems. Conclusion: Reinforced IDS has similar or better bond strength to that of conventional IDS strategies. The need for prospective studies is highlighted. The future clinical studies for immediate dentin sealing ought to be reported in a uniform and methodological way. Clinical significance: Application of an additional layer of low-viscosity resin composite provides a thicker adhesive layer, prevents re-exposure of dentin during the final restoration, and allows a smoother preparation in lesser clinical chair time and eliminates any possible undercuts. Thus, reinforced IDS has shown to result in better preservation of the dentinal seal than IDS technique.