-
European Archives of Paediatric... Feb 2022To systematically review the treatment modalities for molar-incisor hypomineralisation for children under the age of 18 years. The research question was, 'What are the...
PURPOSE
To systematically review the treatment modalities for molar-incisor hypomineralisation for children under the age of 18 years. The research question was, 'What are the treatment options for teeth in children affected by molar incisor hypomineralisation?'
METHODS
An electronic search of the following electronic databases was completed MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, LILACS, Google Scholar and Open Grey identifying studies from 1980 to 2020. The PRISMA guidelines were followed. The studies were screened, data extracted and calibration was completed by two independent reviewers.
RESULTS
Of 6220 potential articles, 34 studies were included. Twenty studies investigated management of molars with fissure sealants, glass ionomer cement, polyacid modified resin composite, composite resin, amalgam, preformed metal crowns, laboratory-manufactured crowns and extractions. In four articles management of incisors with microabrasion, resin-infiltration and a combination of approaches was reported. Eight studies looked at strategies to mineralise MIH-affected teeth and/or reduce hypersensitivity. Two studies investigated patient-centred outcomes following treatment. Due to the heterogeneity between the studies, meta-analysis was not performed.
CONCLUSION
The use of resin-based fissure sealants, preformed metal crowns, direct composite resin restorations and laboratory-made restorations can be recommended for MIH-affected molars. There is insufficient evidence to support specific approaches for the management of affected incisors. Products containing CPP-ACP may be beneficial for MIH-affected teeth.
Topics: Adolescent; Child; Composite Resins; Dental Enamel Hypoplasia; Humans; Incisor; Molar; Pit and Fissure Sealants
PubMed: 34110615
DOI: 10.1007/s40368-021-00635-0 -
Caries Research 2019The aim of this review as part of the preparation for a workshop organized by the European Federation of Conservative Dentistry (EFCD) in conjunction with the European... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
The aim of this review as part of the preparation for a workshop organized by the European Federation of Conservative Dentistry (EFCD) in conjunction with the European Organisation for Caries Research (ORCA) was to systematically analyze available evidence of non-, micro- as well as invasive interventions for root caries lesions (RCLs). For each treatment strategy, a separate systematic review was either performed (micro-invasive and choice of restorative material) or updated (non-invasive and excavation technique) each of them following PRISMA guidelines, and if possible meta-analyses were performed. Besides the general advice to improve tooth brushing with fluoride toothpaste main findings for non-invasive interventions in RCLs, the use of dentifrices containing 5,000 ppm F- as well as professionally applied chlorhexidine varnish or silver diamine fluoride seemed to be more efficacious to arrest root caries compared to conventional fluoride toothpaste or placebo respectively. However, this conclusion is based only on a few randomized clinical trials. For micro-invasive treatments, only 2 studies focusing on sealants were available without clear conclusions. A recent review on the comparison of atraumatic restorative treatment compared with conventional treatment concluded that there is insufficient data to clearly rule out if any difference with regard to restoration longevity between both techniques exists. When restoring coventionally, composites performed better than resin-modified and glass ionomer cements. However, all materials showed rather high annual failure rates in the majority of the studies and evidence is based on a low number of prospective studies with a rather high risk of bias.
Topics: Dental Atraumatic Restorative Treatment; Dentifrices; Glass Ionomer Cements; Humans; Prospective Studies; Root Caries
PubMed: 31412343
DOI: 10.1159/000501588 -
Dental Materials : Official Publication... May 2022The present review is an update of a systematic review that has been published in 2012. Meanwhile, many new clinical trials on resin composites had been published. New... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVE
The present review is an update of a systematic review that has been published in 2012. Meanwhile, many new clinical trials on resin composites had been published. New materials such as bulk fill resin composites and new glass-ionomer (GIC) based materials had been introduced. The focus of this review was to evaluate the longevity in relation to the material class and adhesive class, while adjusting for a possible study bias effect.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
The database PUBMED/SCOPUS were searched for clinical trials on posterior resin composites. The inclusion criteria were: (1) studies published between 2000 and 2019, (2) prospective clinical trial with at least 2 years of observation; (2) minimal number of restorations at last recall = 20; (3) report on drop-out rate; (4) report of operative technique and used materials; (5) utilisation of Ryge, modified Ryge or FDI evaluation criteria. The bias of each study was assessed by two independent reviewers using Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. For the statistical analysis, linear mixed models fitted on the individual data recorded along time have been used with random effects to account for study, patients and experiment effects. P-values smaller than 0.05 were considered significant.
RESULTS
Of the 423 clinical trials, 62 studies (including 110 experiments) met the inclusion criteria. Material class was divided according to the composite filler in microhybrid (39 experiments/2807 restorations), nanohybrid (24 experiments/1254 restorations), and hybrid (22 experiments/1255 restorations). So-called bulk fill materials were treated as a separate category (9 experiments/506 restorations) as were the GIC (11 experiments/2121 restorations) and the compomer materials (5 experiments/238 restorations). Only one study (1.6%) had low risk of bias, 42 (67.7%) were assessed to have unclear risk of bias and 19 (30.6%) had a high risk of bias. In 52.3% of the studies Class II and Class I restorations had been placed. After 10 years, the survival rate for resin composite restorations dropped to about 85-90% with no significant difference between hybrid, microhybrid and nao-hybrid resin materials. The main reasons for restoration replacement were bulk fractures and wear, which accounted for a about 70% of replacements. Caries at the restorative margins accounted for about 20% of the replacements, and retention loss, inacceptable colour match or marginal integrity, endodontic treatment or cusp fracture for about 10% of the replacements of the resin composite restorations. For compomer and GIC restorations the mean overall survival rate was about 80% after 6 years. For GIC, the main reasons for failure were substantial loss of anatomical contour along with loss of proximal contacts and retention loss. Mainly fractures reduced the longevity of compomers restorations. Also, there was no statistically significant difference between hybrid, micro-hybrid, nano-hybrid and bulk fill resin composites with regard to colour match, surface texture, material fractures, and anatomical form.
CONCLUSIONS
Posterior resin composite restorations that were placed with the enamel etch technique showed the best overall performance; the longevity was not significantly influenced by the filler type or viscosity of resin composite material. With regard to colour match, surface texture and anatomical form, nanohybrid resins were not significantly superior to hybrid or microhybrid resin composites. Compomer and GIC restorations demonstrated considerable shortcomings and had a significant shorter longevity.
Topics: Compomers; Composite Resins; Dental Caries; Dental Restoration, Permanent; Glass Ionomer Cements; Humans; Prospective Studies; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 35221127
DOI: 10.1016/j.dental.2021.10.018 -
Heliyon May 2020Restoring noncarious cervical lesions are challenging to clinical practice. This study aimed to compare the clinical performance/longevity of glass ionomer cements (GIC)...
OBJECTIVE
Restoring noncarious cervical lesions are challenging to clinical practice. This study aimed to compare the clinical performance/longevity of glass ionomer cements (GIC) and composite resins (CR) used for noncarious cervical lesions (NCCL) through a systematic review and meta-analysis (MA).
DATA
Randomized and controlled clinical trials and nonrandomized clinical trials, which compared the clinical performance/longevity of CR and GIC (conventional and/or resin-modified) in the treatment of NCCL, were included.
SOURCE
The methodological quality and risk of bias were evaluated using the Cochrane Collaboration tool. Seven MAs were performed considering (1) the clinical performance of the parameters in common: retention, marginal discoloration, marginal adaptation, secondary caries, color, anatomic form, surface texture and (2) a follow-up time of 12, 24 and 36 months. The prevalence of successful restorations and the total number of restorations per clinical parameter/follow-up time were used to calculate the relative risk (95% CI).
STUDY SELECTION
After screening of the studies, 13 studies were used for quantitative synthesis. The risk difference (CI 95%, α, I) between GIC and CR for anatomic form was 0.00 (-0.02, 0.02; p = 0.83; 0%); for color was -0.02 (-0.08, 0.04; p = 0.48; 80%); for surface texture was -0.02 (-0.06, 0.02; p = 0.31; 63%); for secondary caries was -0.00 (-0.01, 0.01; p = 0.87; 0%); for marginal discoloration was 0.01 (-0.01, 0.03; p = 0.23; 3%); for marginal adaptation was 0.01 (-0.01, 0.04; p = 0.34; 32%) and for retention was 0.07 (0.02, 0.12; p = 0.003; 76%).
CONCLUSION
GIC showed a clinical performance significantly higher than CR in regard to retention, whereas for the other parameters, GIC was similar to CR.
CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE
NCCLs is increasingly prevalent among the population and this type of lesion causing defects in the tooth that affect not only aesthetics but also everyday habits, such as drinking, eating and teeth brushing, due to the sensitivity these lesions cause.
PubMed: 32462087
DOI: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2020.e03969 -
Operative Dentistry Nov 2021The following PICO (Patient/Population, Intervention, Comparison, and Outcomes) question was proposed: "Are retention rates of composite resin restorations in noncarious... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
PURPOSE
The following PICO (Patient/Population, Intervention, Comparison, and Outcomes) question was proposed: "Are retention rates of composite resin restorations in noncarious cervical lesions (NCCLs) when using adhesives considered "gold standard" (OptiBond FL and Clearfil SE Bond) higher than those obtained with other adhesives brands"?
METHODS
A search was performed in February 2019 (updated in November 2019) in the PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS, BBO, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, Grey Literature, and IADR abstracts (1990-2018); unpublished and ongoing trial registries, dissertations, and theses were also searched. Only randomized clinical trials (RCTs) conducted in NCCLs that compared either OptiBond FL or Clearfil SE Bond adhesive with other commercially available adhesives were included. The risk of bias (RoB) was applied by using the Cochrane Collaboration tool. A meta-analysis was performed for retention rates at different follow-up times using a random effects model for both the adhesives. Heterogeneity was assessed with the Cochran Q test and I2 statistics. Grading of Recommendations: Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) assessed the quality of evidence.
RESULTS
After removal of duplicates and noneligible articles, 25 studies remained for qualitative synthesis, as one study was common to the two adhesives, of which 9 studies were used for the OptiBond FL meta-analysis and 14 for the Clearfil SE Bond meta-analysis. No significant differences were observed for retention rates in follow-up periods of 12-24 months (p=0.97), 36-48 months (p=0.72), or 108-156 months (p=0.73) for OptiBond FL; and for 12-24 months (p=0.10) and 36-48 months (p=0.17) for Clearfil SE Bond. A significant difference was only found for OptiBond FL at 60-96 months (p=0.02), but only three studies were included in this meta-analysis.
CONCLUSIONS
The evidence from available RCTs conducted in NCCLs that compared OptiBond FL or Clearfil SE Bond does not support the widespread concept that these adhesives are better than any other competitive brands available in the dental market.
Topics: Composite Resins; Dental Bonding; Dental Cements; Dental Restoration, Permanent; Dentin-Bonding Agents; Humans; Resin Cements
PubMed: 34919728
DOI: 10.2341/20-059-LIT -
Swiss Dental Journal Dec 2021The objective was to systematically analyse clinical studies on restorative procedures for teeth affected by molar-incisor hypomineralisation (MIH). The databases...
The objective was to systematically analyse clinical studies on restorative procedures for teeth affected by molar-incisor hypomineralisation (MIH). The databases PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library were searched. Only retrospective and prospective clinical studies dealing with sealing or restoration of MIH-affected teeth were included. The language was restricted to English or German. Thirteen of 36 potentially eligible studies were included focusing on the following subjects: extension of enamel preparation, adhesive procedures prior to restoration, application of fissure sealants as well as restoration with conventional glass ionomer cements (GIC), resin modified glass ionomer cements (RMGIC), resin composites, and indirect restorations. Seven clinical studies were controlled trials. However, only two included MIH-unaffected teeth as control. No meta-analysis was performed due to the heterogeneity of study designs (e.g. severity of MIH or the restorative materials investigated). Based on the present analysis, the annual failure rates were in average 21% for fissure sealants, 22% for GIC, 1-6% for RMGIC, 13-32% for resin composites, and 0-7% for indirect restorations. In summary, only few tendencies can be deduced from this review at a low level of evidence (number of studies): 1) preparation margins in sound enamel seem to be superior to preparations in hypomineralised enamel (1 study), 2) RMGIC seems to be superior to GIC (3 studies), 3) resin composites may be used for restoring all severities of MIH (7 studies) with self-etch and etch-and-rinse adhesive systems generally not performing differently (3 studies), and 4) in cases of severe MIH, indirect restorations showed a good clinical success (4 studies).
Topics: Dental Enamel Hypoplasia; Dental Restoration, Permanent; Humans; Incisor; Molar; Prospective Studies; Retrospective Studies
PubMed: 33764037
DOI: 10.61872/sdj-2021-12-764 -
The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry Jul 2023Screwmentable prostheses were developed to combine the benefits of screw retention and cement retention. However, data are limited on the clinical performance of this... (Review)
Review
STATEMENT OF PROBLEM
Screwmentable prostheses were developed to combine the benefits of screw retention and cement retention. However, data are limited on the clinical performance of this type of prosthesis.
PURPOSE
The purpose of this systematic review was to collect scientific evidence on screwmentable prostheses and evaluate their long-term clinical behavior.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
An electronic search was conducted by 2 independent reviewers for articles published in scientific dental journals in English from 2004 to April 2020. The search strategy followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Inclusion criteria were scientific studies concerning the screwmentable type of prosthesis.
RESULTS
The search provided 494 records. Of these, 24 studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria and were included in the review. The included articles presented significant heterogeneity concerning the manufacturing process and the materials used. One randomized clinical trial, 2 prospective clinical studies, 14 in vitro studies, 3 protocol descriptions, 1 case series, and 3 case reports were included.
CONCLUSIONS
Based on the systematic search of the literature, it is concluded that the screwmentable prosthesis combines advantages of both cement-retained and screw-retained restorations, including passive fit, retrievability, excess cement control, tissue-friendly emergence profile, and improved esthetics. Nevertheless, data from well-designed clinical trials are limited, and further research is required to provide evidence on their long-term clinical behavior.
Topics: Dental Implants; Dental Prosthesis Retention; Prospective Studies; Dental Prosthesis, Implant-Supported; Esthetics, Dental; Dental Cements; Glass Ionomer Cements; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 34740460
DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2021.08.027 -
Caries Research 2019To investigate whether silver diamine fluoride (SDF) is effective in preventing new caries lesions in primary teeth when compared to placebo or active treatments. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVES
To investigate whether silver diamine fluoride (SDF) is effective in preventing new caries lesions in primary teeth when compared to placebo or active treatments.
METHODS
Systematic review (CRD42016036963) of controlled clinical trials. Searches were performed in 9 electronic databases, 5 registers of ongoing trials, and reference lists of identified review articles. Two researchers carried out data extraction and quality appraisal independently. The primary outcome was the difference in caries increment (decayed, missing, and filled surfaces or teeth - dmfs or dmft) between SDF and control groups. These differences were pooled as weighted mean differences (WMD) and prevented fractions (PF).
RESULTS
Searches yielded 2,366 unique records; 6 reports of 4 trials that randomized 1,118 and analyzed 915 participants were included. Two trials compared SDF to no treatment, 1 compared SDF to placebo and sodium fluoride varnish (FV), and 1 compared SDF to high-viscosity glass ionomer cement (GIC). All studies had at least 1 domain with unclear or high risk of bias. After 24 months of follow-up, in comparison to placebo, no treatment, and FV, SDF applications significantly reduced the development of new dentin caries lesions (placebo or no treatment: WMD = -1.15, PF = 77.5%; FV: WMD = -0.43, PF = 54.0%). GIC was more effective than SDF after 12 months of follow-up but the difference between them was not statistically significant (WMD, dmft: 0.34, PF: -6.09%).
CONCLUSION
When applied to caries lesions in primary teeth, SDF compared to no treatment, placebo or FV appears to effectively prevent dental caries in the entire dentition. However, trials specifically designed to assess this outcome are needed.
Topics: Cariostatic Agents; Child; Child, Preschool; Controlled Clinical Trials as Topic; Dental Caries; Fluorides, Topical; Follow-Up Studies; Glass Ionomer Cements; Humans; Inflammation; Quaternary Ammonium Compounds; Silver Compounds; Sodium Fluoride; Taste Disorders; Tooth Discoloration; Tooth, Deciduous
PubMed: 29874642
DOI: 10.1159/000488686 -
Biomimetics (Basel, Switzerland) Aug 2023Additive manufacturing (three-dimensional (3D) printing) has become a leading manufacturing technique in dentistry due to its various advantages. However, its potential... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Additive manufacturing (three-dimensional (3D) printing) has become a leading manufacturing technique in dentistry due to its various advantages. However, its potential applications for dental ceramics are still being explored. Zirconia, among ceramics, has increasing popularity and applications in dentistry mostly due to its excellent properties. Although subtractive manufacturing (3D milling) is considered the most advanced technology for the fabrication of zirconia restorations, certain disadvantages are associated with it.
METHODS
A systematic review was piloted to compare the clinical performance of zirconium crowns that were fabricated using three-dimensional (3D) milling and 3D printing. A meta-analysis was performed, and studies published up to November 2022 were identified. The terms searched were "Zirconium crowns", "3D printing", "CAD/CAM" (Computer-Aided Design and Computer-Aided Manufacturing), "Milling", "dental crowns", and "3D milling". The characteristics that were compared were the year in which the study was published, study design, age of the patient, country, the number of crowns, the type of crown fabrication, marginal integrity, caries status, and outcomes. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were used to structure this systematic review. Out of eleven hundred and fifty titles identified after a primary search, nine articles were included in the quantitative analysis. The research question based on PICO/PECO (Participant, Intervention/exposure, Comparison, and Outcome) was "Do 3D-printed and milled (P) zirconia crowns and FDPs (I) have a better survival rate (O) when conventional prosthesis is also an option (C)"? The data collected were tabulated and compared, and the risk of bias and meta-analysis were later performed. Only nine articles (clinical research) were selected for the study. Since there were no clinical studies on the 3D printing of zirconium crowns, six in vitro studies were considered for the comparison. Zirconium crowns in the milling group had an average minimum follow-up of 6 months.
RESULTS
A moderate risk of bias was found, and survival was significant. A high heterogeneity level was noted among the studies. Marginal integrity, periodontal status, and survival rate were high. Linear regression depicted no statistical correlation between the type of cement used and the survival rate.
CONCLUSIONS
It can be concluded that the milled crowns had a higher performance and satisfactory clinical survival.
PubMed: 37754145
DOI: 10.3390/biomimetics8050394 -
National Journal of Maxillofacial... 2015Treatment of head and neck cancers (HNCs) involves radiotherapy. Patients undergoing radiotherapy for HNCs are prone to dental complications. Radiotherapy to the head... (Review)
Review
Treatment of head and neck cancers (HNCs) involves radiotherapy. Patients undergoing radiotherapy for HNCs are prone to dental complications. Radiotherapy to the head and neck region causes xerostomia and salivary gland dysfunction which dramatically increases the risk of dental caries and its sequelae. Radiation therapy (RT) also affects the dental hard tissues increasing their susceptibility to demineralization following RT. Postradiation caries is a rapidly progressing and highly destructive type of dental caries. Radiation-related caries and other dental hard tissue changes can appear within the first 3 months following RT. Hence, every effort should be focused on prevention to manage patients with severe caries. This can be accomplished through good preoperative dental treatment, frequent dental evaluation and treatment after RT (with the exception of extractions), and consistent home care that includes self-applied fluoride. Restorative management of radiation caries can be challenging. The restorative dentist must consider the altered dental substrate and a hostile oral environment when selecting restorative materials. Radiation-induced changes in enamel and dentine may compromise bonding of adhesive materials. Consequently, glass ionomer cements have proved to be a better alternative to composite resins in irradiated patients. Counseling of patients before and after radiotherapy can be done to make them aware of the complications of radiotherapy and thus can help in preventing them.
PubMed: 27390489
DOI: 10.4103/0975-5950.183870