-
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Apr 2018Bonding of orthodontic brackets to teeth is important to enable effective and efficient treatment with fixed appliances. The problem is bracket failure during treatment... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Bonding of orthodontic brackets to teeth is important to enable effective and efficient treatment with fixed appliances. The problem is bracket failure during treatment which increases operator chairside time and lengthens treatment time. A prolonged treatment is likely to increase the oral health risks of orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances one of which is irreversible enamel decalcification. This is an update of the Cochrane Review first published in 2003. A new full search was conducted on 26 September 2017 but no new studies were identified. We have only updated the search methods section in this new version. The conclusions of this Cochrane Review remain the same.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the effects of different orthodontic adhesives for bonding.
SEARCH METHODS
Cochrane Oral Health's Information Specialist searched the following databases: Cochrane Oral Health's Trials Register (to 26 September 2017), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2017, Issue 8) in the Cochrane Library (searched 26 September 2017), MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to 26 September 2017), and Embase Ovid (1980 to 26 September 2017). The US National Institutes of Health Ongoing Trials Register (ClinicalTrials.gov) and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform were searched for ongoing trials. No restrictions were placed on the language or date of publication when searching the electronic databases.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Trials were selected if they met the following criteria: randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and controlled clinical trials (CCTs) comparing two different adhesive groups. Participants were patients with fixed orthodontic appliances. The interventions were adhesives that bonded stainless steel brackets to all teeth except the molars. The primary outcome was debond or bracket failure.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Data were recorded on decalcification as a secondary outcome, if present. Information regarding methods, participants, interventions, outcome measures and results were extracted in duplicate by pairs of review authors. Since the data were not presented in a form that was amenable to meta-analysis, the results of the review are presented in narrative form only.
MAIN RESULTS
Three trials satisfied the inclusion criteria. A chemical cured composite was compared with a light cured composite (one trial), a conventional glass ionomer cement (one trial) and a polyacid-modified resin composite (compomer) (one trial). The quality of the trial reports was generally poor.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is no clear evidence on which to make a clinical decision of the type of orthodontic adhesive to use.
Topics: Compomers; Decalcification, Pathologic; Dental Bonding; Dental Cements; Glass Ionomer Cements; Humans; Orthodontic Brackets; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 29630138
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD002282.pub2 -
Clinical Oral Implants Research Oct 2017The aim of this systematic review was to assess the role of excess cement as risk indicator for peri-implant diseases. (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVE
The aim of this systematic review was to assess the role of excess cement as risk indicator for peri-implant diseases.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
A systematic literature search with the keywords peri-implant disease, peri-implant mucositis, peri-implantitis, excess cement, cemented, and screw-retained restorations was performed for articles published by June 2016 using MEDLINE and EMBASE electronic databases, complemented by hand searching.
RESULTS
The included 26 publications referring to 21 study groups were published between 1999 and 2016 and comprised 945 subjects with 1010 cemented implant restorations in 10 prospective and eight retrospective studies and eight case reports/series with pronounced heterogeneity of the study designs. Prevalence of peri-implant diseases varied between 1.9% and 75% of the implants with cemented restorations, with proportions of 33-100% associated with excess cement. In publications including early follow-ups and regular recall intervals, peri-implant disease was mostly detected at an early stage. Cofactors, such as type of abutment (standardized or individualized) and cementum medium used, did not have a significant influence, while higher prevalence of peri-implant diseases was found with immediate loading or cementation subsequent to reentry, and with cemented vs. screw-retained restorations.
CONCLUSIONS
Excess cement was identified as a possible risk indicator for peri-implant diseases and was more frequently observed with soft tissue healing periods shorter than 4 weeks. To reduce the risk of peri-implant disease associated with excess cement, a crown margin at the level of the mucosal margin providing sufficient access is recommendable, and soft tissue maturation and early follow-ups after restoration placement should be assured.
Topics: Dental Cements; Humans; Peri-Implantitis; Risk Factors; Stomatitis
PubMed: 27647536
DOI: 10.1111/clr.12954 -
Supportive Care in Cancer : Official... Jan 2018This systematic review aims to update on the prevalence of odontogenic-related infections and the efficacy of dental strategies in preventing dental-related... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
This systematic review aims to update on the prevalence of odontogenic-related infections and the efficacy of dental strategies in preventing dental-related complications in cancer patients since the 2010 systematic review.
REVIEW METHOD
A literature search was conducted in the databases MEDLINE/PubMed and EMBASE for articles published between 1 January 2009 and 30 June 2016. Each study was assessed by 2 reviewers and the body of evidence for each intervention was assigned an evidence level.
RESULTS
After examination of the abstracts and full-text articles, 59 articles satisfied the inclusion criteria. The weighted prevalence of dental infections and pericoronitis during cancer therapy was 5.4 and 5.3%, respectively. The frequency of dental-related infections during intensive chemotherapy after complete, partial, and minimal pre-cancer dental evaluation/treatment protocols ranged from 0 to 4%. Protocols involving third molars extractions had the highest complications (40%).
CONCLUSIONS
In view of the low prevalence of infections and the potential for complications after third molar extractions, it is suggested that partial dental evaluation/treatment protocols prior to intensive chemotherapy; whereby minor caries (within dentin), asymptomatic third molars or asymptomatic teeth without excessive probing depth (<8 mm), mobility (mobility I or II) or with periapical lesions of <5 mm were observed; is a viable option when there is insufficient time for complete dental evaluation/treatment protocols. The use of chlorhexidine, fluoride mouth rinses as well as composite resin, resin-modified glass ionomer cement (GIC), and amalgam restorations over conventional GIC in post head and neck radiation patients who are compliant fluoride users is recommended.
Topics: Dental Care; Humans; Neoplasms; Tooth Diseases
PubMed: 28735355
DOI: 10.1007/s00520-017-3829-y -
The Journal of Evidence-based Dental... Dec 2022To determine the clinical performance of light-cured calcium silicate-based cement for direct or indirect pulp capping. The research question was as follows: in teeth... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVES
To determine the clinical performance of light-cured calcium silicate-based cement for direct or indirect pulp capping. The research question was as follows: in teeth with deep caries lesions, does the use of resin-modified calcium silicate-containing composites improve the radiological success and prevent irreversible pulpitis and pulpal necrosis compared with other pulp-capping agents?
MATERIALS AND METHODS
The following databases were screened until September 2021: PubMed, Web of Science, Scielo, Scopus, Embase, and The Cochrane Library. Randomized clinical trials reporting the clinical evaluation of a resin-modified calcium silicate material as an agent for pulp therapy were included. Meta-analysis was performed using the Rev Manager v5.4.1 software. The risk difference and 95% confidence interval of the dichotomous outcome (restoration failure or success) were calculated for comparison.
RESULTS
Ten studies were considered for qualitative analysis and meta-analysis. Studies evaluating the performance of light-cured calcium silicate-based cement from 1 month to a maximum follow-up period of 36 months and comparing it with the performance of CaOH, mineral trioxide aggregate, or Biodentine were included. In the global analysis for direct pulp capping at 6-month follow-up, no statistical differences were observed between the experimental group using the light-cured calcium silicate-based cement and control group (P = .28). However, at 12-month follow-up, global analysis favored the control group (P < .001). For indirect pulp capping, at 6- and 24-month follow-ups, no statistically significant differences were observed between the experimental and control groups (P = .88; P = .21).
CONCLUSIONS
Light-cured calcium silicate-based cement showed a limited clinical performance as a direct pulp capping agent, especially when evaluated in the long term. However, using it as an indirect pulp capping agent may be a reliable and easy-to-use option for restoring teeth with deep caries.
CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE
This systematic review provides evidence that supports the use of light-cured calcium silicate-based cement as an indirect pulp capping agent.
Topics: Humans; Pulp Capping and Pulpectomy Agents; Dental Pulp Capping; Silicate Cement; Glass Ionomer Cements; Dental Cements; Composite Resins
PubMed: 36494107
DOI: 10.1016/j.jebdp.2022.101776 -
Clinical, Cosmetic and Investigational... 2020Dental implant is an effective and standardized treatment procedure in the healthcare setting. This study presents a comparison of dental implant reconstruction using... (Review)
Review
PURPOSE
Dental implant is an effective and standardized treatment procedure in the healthcare setting. This study presents a comparison of dental implant reconstruction using screw and cement. It explicitly reviews the studies concerning cement and screws dental implants to determine the efficiency of the two.
PATIENTS AND METHODS
A systematic review was conducted by comprehensively searching electronic literature. The keywords, such as "Screw versus Cement Retained Fixed Implant Supported Reconstructions," "Screw Retained Fixed Implant." "Cement Implant" and "Dental Implant" were used for article searching. Twelve studies were included based on the determined inclusion and exclusion criteria.
RESULTS
No significant difference was found between the screw-retained and cemented retained implant supported reconstructions. Dental implants are associated with complications leading to implant failure based on the type of restoration that is being used; cement-retained restoration and screw-retained restoration. The treatment selection must be based on the significance criteria and the tooth condition.
CONCLUSION
Screw-retained implant-supported reconstructions were found to pose less biological and technological complications. Retention of the tooth is more stable and functional when implantation is selected based on the efficiency of a treatment procedure.
PubMed: 32021476
DOI: 10.2147/CCIDE.S231070 -
Methods and Protocols Jan 2022The most used types of retention of implant-supported prostheses are screw-retained or cement-retained restorations. The advantages and disadvantages of both have been... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
The most used types of retention of implant-supported prostheses are screw-retained or cement-retained restorations. The advantages and disadvantages of both have been identified by various authors over the years. However, cement-retained implant crowns and fixed partial dentures are among the most used types of restorations in implant prostheses, due to their aesthetic and clinical advantages. When cemented prostheses are made on implants, the problem of cement residues is important and often associated with biological implant pathologies. The objective of this research was to establish to what extent the techniques to reduce excess cement really affect the volume of cement residues.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
This review was written following the PRISMA statement; a detailed search was carried out in three different electronic databases-PubMed, Scopus, and Cochrane Library. The inclusion criteria were prospective clinical studies, with at least 10 participants per group, and with at least 6 months of the follow-up period.
RESULTS
There have been many proposals for techniques supposed to reduce the amount of excess cement in the peri-implant sulcus and on the prosthetic components, but of these, which are exceptional in their in vitro capabilities, very few have been clinically validated, and this represents the real limitation and a great lack of knowledge regarding this topic. Three articles met the inclusion criteria, which were analyzed and compared, to obtain the information necessary for the purposes of the systematic review.
DISCUSSION
Extraoral cementation can reduce the excess cement, which, after a normal excess removal procedure, is, nevertheless, of such size that it does not affect the possibility of peri-implant pathologies developing. All these studies concluded that a small amount of cement residue is found in the gingival sulcus, and using eugenol-free oxide cements, the residues were only deposited on the metal surfaces, with a better peri-implant tissues health.
CONCLUSION
Despite the limitations of this study, it was possible to carefully analyze these characteristics and obtain valuable suggestions for daily clinical practice. Resinous cements are considered, due to the free monomers present in them, toxic for the soft tissues. The provisional zinc-oxide cements, also eugenol-free, represent the ideal choice. The different grades of retentive forces provided by these cements do not seem to have clinical effects on the decementation of restorations.
PubMed: 35076562
DOI: 10.3390/mps5010009 -
European Journal of Trauma and... Jun 2022This study aimed to determine the efficacy and safety of cement augmentation for internally fixed trochanteric fractures through a systematic review and meta-analysis of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
PURPOSE
This study aimed to determine the efficacy and safety of cement augmentation for internally fixed trochanteric fractures through a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs).
METHODS
We searched the MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and ClinicalTrials.gov databases to identify RCTs, published until July 2020 that examined the effects of cement augmentation of internal fixation of trochanteric fractures. The primary outcomes were reoperation and Parker Mobility Score, whereas the secondary outcomes were 1-year mortality rate, EuroQol 5 Dimension, fixation failures, and adverse events. We conducted meta-analyses of the outcome measures using the random-effects models. We evaluated the certainty of evidence based on the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool and the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach.
RESULTS
We included three RCTs (326 participants). No significant effect was observed in favor of cement augmentation on all these outcomes. The certainty of evidence for fixation failures was very low and that for the other outcomes was low. The overall risk of bias for each outcome was high or of some concern in all included studies.
CONCLUSIONS
The effect of cement augmentation of internal fixation of trochanteric fractures was uncertain for the clinical outcomes due to the low certainty of evidence. Further RCTs with a low risk of selection bias may present convincing conclusions on the efficacy and safety of cement augmentation.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE
Level 1.
Topics: Fracture Fixation, Internal; Hip Fractures; Humans; Reoperation
PubMed: 34223912
DOI: 10.1007/s00068-021-01746-5 -
The Journal of Adhesive Dentistry Feb 2015Currently, no consensus exists regarding the best adhesion protocol for zirconia used in dentistry; this is important particularly for restorations where mechanical... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
PURPOSE
Currently, no consensus exists regarding the best adhesion protocol for zirconia used in dentistry; this is important particularly for restorations where mechanical retention is deficient. This systematic review analyzed the adhesion potential of resin-based and glass-ionomer luting cements to zirconia and aimed to highlight the possible dominant factors affecting the bond strength results to this substrate.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Original scientific papers on adhesion to zirconia published in the MEDLINE (PubMed) database between 01/01/1995 and 01/06/2011 were included in this systematic review. The following MeSH terms, search terms, and their combinations were used: "Dental bonding", "Zirconium", "Zirconia", "Y-TZP", "Y-TZP ceramic", "Materials Testing/methods", "Test", "Cement", and "Resin bonding". Two reviewers performed screening and data abstraction. Descriptive statistics were performed and the frequencies of the studied parameters, means, standard deviations, confidence intervals (95% CI; uncorrected and corrected), median values, and interquartile ranges (IQR) were calculated for the bond strength data reported for different factor levels: surface conditioning methods (control, physicochemical, physical, chemical), cements (bis-GMA-, MDP-, and 4-META-based resin cements, self-adhesive cements, glass ionomer), aging with and without thermocycling (TC), and test methods (macroshear, microshear, macrotensile, and microtensile).
RESULTS
The final search provided 177 titles with abstracts. Further abstract screening yielded 72 articles, out of which 54 were found potentially appropriate to be included. After full text evaluation, 2 of these were eliminated. The selection process resulted in the final sample of 52 studies. In total, 169 different surface conditioning methods, mainly combinations of air-abrasion protocols and adhesive promoters (primers or silanes), were investigated. Altogether, the use of 5 types of cements and 4 testing methods was reported. While 26 studies were performed without TC as aging, 26 of them employed thermocycling at varying number of cycles. This review highlighted that adhesion of the luting cements is significantly influenced by the surface conditioning method (p = 0.044), cement type (p = 0.018), test method (p = 0.017) and aging condition (p = 0.003). In nonconditioned control groups without thermocycling, mean bond strength values ranged between 1.15 (IQR = 3.54) and 8.93 (IQR = 9), and 6.9 (IQR = 0) and 8.73 (IQR = 13.93) MPa for macroshear and macrotensile tests, respectively. After physical conditioning method, MDP monomer based cement presented the highest bond values compared to those of other resin cements using either the macrotensile (no TC: 34.2; IQR = 24.18 MPa, TC: 42.35; IQR = 0 MPa) or microtensile (no TC: 37.2; IQR = 41.5 MPa, TC: 17.1; IQR = 31.15 MPa) test method.
CONCLUSION
Based on the results of this systematic review, increased adhesion could be expected after physicochemical conditioning of zirconia. MDP-based resin cements tend to present higher results than those of other cements types when tested using macro- and microtensile tests. Adhesion studies on zirconia and reporting of data require more standardization.
Topics: Ceramics; Dental Bonding; Dental Materials; Glass Ionomer Cements; Humans; Resin Cements; Surface Properties; Yttrium; Zirconium
PubMed: 25646166
DOI: 10.3290/j.jad.a33525 -
Clinical and Experimental Dental... Dec 2023The aim of this study was to review the selection criteria of resin cements for different types of partial coverage restorations (PCRs) and investigate if the type of... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVE
The aim of this study was to review the selection criteria of resin cements for different types of partial coverage restorations (PCRs) and investigate if the type of restorations or restorative materials affect the type of selected resin cement.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
An electronic search (1991-2023) was performed in PubMed, Medline, Scopus, and Google Scholar databases by combinations of related keywords.
RESULTS
A total of 68 articles were included to review the selection criteria based on the advantages, disadvantages, indications, and performance of resin cements for different types of PCRs.
CONCLUSIONS
The survival and success of PCRs are largely affected by appropriate cement selection. Self-curing and dual-curing resin cements have been recommended for the cementation of metallic PCRs. The PCRs fabricated from thin, translucent, and low-strength ceramics could be adhesively bonded by light-cure conventional resin cements. Self-etching and self-adhesive cements, especially dual-cure types, are not generally indicated for laminate veneers.
Topics: Resin Cements; Ceramics; Dental Cements; Cementation
PubMed: 37427500
DOI: 10.1002/cre2.761 -
Pediatric Dentistry Nov 2023to update the 2016 systematic review evidence for vital pulp therapy (VPT) for primary teeth affected by caries or trauma. The population, intervention, comparison,... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
to update the 2016 systematic review evidence for vital pulp therapy (VPT) for primary teeth affected by caries or trauma. The population, intervention, comparison, outcomes, and study (PICOS) design inclusion/exclusion was used for multiple databases. Risk of bias, meta-analyses using RevMan, and certainty of evidence was created. A total of 299 studies were included; no trauma was found. Indirect pulp treatment (IPT) resulted in 97 percent success. Two calcium silicate cement (CSC) pulpotomies' success using mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) and Biodentine were 94 percent and 90 percent, respectively, greater than for direct pulp capping (DPC; 86 percent) and other pulpotomies (moderate certainty). The success of IPT versus pulpotomy at 24 months showed no significant difference (P=0.31). Different liners or capping agents did not affect the success of IPT (P=0.79) or DPC at 24 months (P=0.24). The two CSC pulpotomies were not significantly different based on 24-month success (P=0.34). The formocresol pulpotomy success at 24 months was significantly lower than for MTA (P=0.02). Ferric sulfate had a significant lower success at 24 months than MTA pulpotomy (69 percent versus 92 percent; P=0.03). Zinc oxide eugenol, as a singular pulpotomy, had low success (65 percent). Selective/stepwise caries removal did significantly better at avoiding pulp exposures than complete excavation (P<0.001). Complete, selective, and no caries removal (Hall technique [HT], steel crown placement with no caries removal) had no significant difference in pulp vitality success for deep caries at 24 months (P=0.29). For deep caries affecting vital incisors, pulpotomy had significantly greater success than pulpectomy (P=0.002). The following had no significant effect on MTA pulpotomy success: coronal pulp removal methods; irrigation solution; method to control hemorrhage; base over MTA; treatment in one or two visits; and anterior or posterior teeth. Vital pulp therapy success of indirect pulp treatment or two calcium silicate cement pulpotomies demonstrated improved success over direct pulp capping and other pulpotomies based on 24-month evidence with moderate certainty. The Hall technique did not significantly reduce pulp vitality success versus caries removal.
Topics: Humans; Calcium Compounds; Silicates; Dental Care; Dental Cements; Zinc Oxide-Eugenol Cement; Dental Pulp Capping; Pulpotomy; Glass Ionomer Cements; Tooth, Deciduous; Oxides; Drug Combinations; Treatment Outcome; Aluminum Compounds
PubMed: 38129755
DOI: No ID Found