Objective: The aim of this study was to compare the rate of vaginal delivery and adverse outcomes of a controlled-release dinoprostone vaginal delivery system (PROPESS) and the administration of oral dinoprostone for labor induction in multiparous women at term.Methods: This retrospective case-controlled study included 92 multiparous pregnant women (46 and 46 in the PROPESS and oral dinoprostone groups, respectively) who required labor induction at ≥37 weeks of gestation. The primary outcome was the success rate of vaginal delivery following the insertion of PROPESS only or the administration of oral dinoprostone (up to six tablets) only. The secondary outcomes were uterine tachysystole with non-reassuring fetal status, the proportion of cases requiring pre-delivery oxytocin, and the rate of cesarean delivery.Results: The proportion of pregnant women who delivered vaginally as the primary outcome was significantly higher in the PROPESS group (33/46 [72%]) than in the oral dinoprostone group (16/46 [35%], p < 0.01). In the secondary outcomes, the proportion of cases requiring pre-delivery oxytocin in the PROPESS group was significantly lower than that in the oral dinoprostone group (24% vs. 57%, p < 0.01).Conclusions: In multiparous women at term, PROPESS may be able to induce labor and lead to a higher vaginal delivery rate without adverse outcomes compared to oral dinoprostone.