-
Clinical Oral Investigations Oct 2023To compare the failure rates and the prevalence of technical complications between full-coverage tooth-supported monolithic zirconia (MZ) and porcelain-veneered zirconia... (Review)
Review
Clinical outcomes of tooth-supported monolithic zirconia vs. porcelain-veneered zirconia fixed dental prosthesis, with an additional focus on the cement type: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
PURPOSE
To compare the failure rates and the prevalence of technical complications between full-coverage tooth-supported monolithic zirconia (MZ) and porcelain-veneered zirconia (PVZ) fixed dental prosthesis, based on a systematic literature review.
METHODS
An electronic search was performed in three databases, supplemented by hand searching. Several statistical methods were used.
RESULTS
Seventy-four publications reported 6370 restorations (4264 PVZ; 2106 MZ; 8200 abutment teeth; 3549 patients), followed up until 152 months. A total of 216 prostheses failed, and survival was statistically significant different between groups. PVZ had higher occurrence of complications than MZ; the difference was especially greater for either minor or major chipping. The difference in prevalence of either minor or major chipping was statistically significant for PVZ prostheses between cementation with glass ionomer and adhesive resin cement (higher), adhesive resin and resin-modified glass ionomer cement (RMGIC, higher), and between RMGIC (higher) and glass ionomer cement. For MZ the difference was significant only for minor chipping between RMGIC (higher) and adhesive resin cement. Abutment teeth to PVZ prostheses more often lost vitality. Decementation was not observed with RMGIC. Air abrasion did not seem to clinically decrease the decementation risk. The 5-year difference in the occurrence of minor or major chipping between MZ and PVZ prostheses was statistically significant, but nor for catastrophic fracture.
CONCLUSION
Tooth-supported PVZ prostheses present higher failure and complication rates than MZ prosthesis. The difference in complications is striking when it comes to chipping.
CLINICAL RELEVANCE
Awareness of the outcome differences between different types of zirconia prostheses is important for clinical practice.
PubMed: 37626273
DOI: 10.1007/s00784-023-05219-4 -
Acta Stomatologica Croatica Mar 2021Ion-incorporated zeolite is a widely used antimicrobial material studied for various dental applications. At present, there is no other systematic review that evaluates... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVE
Ion-incorporated zeolite is a widely used antimicrobial material studied for various dental applications. At present, there is no other systematic review that evaluates the effectiveness of zeolite in all dental materials. The purpose of this study was to review all available literature that analyzed the antimicrobial effects and/or mechanical properties of zeolite as a restorative material in dentistry.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
Following PRISMA guidelines, an exhaustive search of PubMed, Ovid Medline, Scopus, Embase, and the Dentistry & Oral Sciences Source was conducted. No language or time restrictions were used and the study was conducted from June 1, 2020 to August 17, 2020. Only full text articles were selected that pertained to the usage of zeolite in dental materials including composite resin, bonding agents, cements, restorative root material, cavity base material, prosthesis, implants, and endodontics.
RESULTS
At the beginning of the study, 1534 studies were identified, of which 687 duplicate records were excluded. After screening for the title, abstract, and full texts, 35 articles remained and were included in the qualitative synthesis. An Inter-Rater Reliability (IRR) test, which included a percent user agreement and reliability percent, was conducted for each of the 35 articles chosen.
CONCLUSION
Although ion-incorporated zeolite may enhance the antimicrobial properties of dental materials, the mechanical properties of some materials, such as MTA and acrylic resin, may be compromised. Therefore, since the decrease in mechanical properties depends on zeolite concentration in the restorative material, it is generally recommended to add 0.2-2% zeolite by weight.
PubMed: 33867540
DOI: 10.15644/asc55/1/9 -
The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry Oct 2023Implant-supported fixed dental prostheses can be cement- or screw-retained on the implant or abutment, with advantages and disadvantages for each method. Cemented... (Review)
Review
STATEMENT OF PROBLEM
Implant-supported fixed dental prostheses can be cement- or screw-retained on the implant or abutment, with advantages and disadvantages for each method. Cemented prostheses have been associated with peri-implant disease because cement remnants act as a reservoir for bacteria and hinder biofilm control. However, contrasting evidence has been presented regarding this association based on studies with varying designs, and a systematic review and meta-analysis is required.
PURPOSE
The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to answer the focused question: In patients who received implant-supported prostheses, is the incidence of peri-implant diseases higher in cemented implant-supported prostheses than in screw-retained ones?
MATERIAL AND METHODS
The search was conducted using the National Library of Medicine (MEDLINE-PubMed), SCOPUS, EMBASE, and ISI Web of Science databases. Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) that assessed the incidence of peri-implant disease in cement- and screw-retained prostheses were included. Two authors independently screened the titles and abstracts, and analyzed the full texts, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias. The findings were summarized using meta-analyses with random effects, and the level of certainty of the evidence was determined using the grading of recommendations, assessments, development, and evaluations (GRADE) approach.
RESULTS
The search yielded 4455 articles that met the inclusion criteria based on the title and/or abstract selection. A total of 6 RCTs were included for analysis. The meta-analysis revealed no significant difference between cement- and screw-retained prostheses for the risk of peri-implant mucositis (RR: 1.36, 95% CI: 0.42-4.38, P=.61). Similarly, no significant difference was observed between cement- and screw-retained prostheses for the incidence of peri-implantitis (RR: 1.00, 95% CI: 0.23-4.31, P=1.00).
CONCLUSIONS
Moderate certainty evidence suggests that cement- and screw-retained prostheses present a similar risk for peri-implant mucositis and peri-implantitis.
PubMed: 37793953
DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2023.08.030 -
Clinical Oral Investigations Dec 2020To perform a review on the influence of preheating and/or heating of resinous and ionomeric materials on their physical and mechanical properties and to discuss the...
OBJECTIVES
To perform a review on the influence of preheating and/or heating of resinous and ionomeric materials on their physical and mechanical properties and to discuss the benefits and methods of preheating/heating that have been used.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
A search was performed in the Pubmed, Scopus, Scielo, and gray literature databases. In vitro studies published from 1980 until now were searched using the descriptors "composite resins OR glass ionomer cements OR resin cements OR adhesives AND heating OR preheating." Data extraction and quality of work evaluation were performed by two independent evaluators.
RESULTS
At the end of reading the search titles and abstracts, 74 articles were selected. Preheating of composite resins reduces viscosity, facilitates adaptation to cavity preparation walls, increases the degree of conversion, and decreases the polymerization shrinkage. Preheating of resin cements improves strength, adhesion, and degree of conversion. Dental adhesives showed good results such as higher bond strength to dentin. However, unlike resinous materials, ionomeric materials have an increase in viscosity upon heating.
CONCLUSIONS
Preheating improves the mechanical and physical properties. However, there is a lack of clinical studies to confirm the advantages of preheating technique.
CLINICAL RELEVANCE
Preheating of dental restorative materials is a simple, safe, and successful technique. In order to achieve good results, agility and training are necessary so the material would not lose heat until the restorative procedure. Also, care is necessary to avoid bubbles and formation of gaps, which compromises the best restoration performance.
Topics: Composite Resins; Dental Bonding; Dental Cements; Dental Materials; Dentin; Glass Ionomer Cements; Heating; Materials Testing; Resin Cements
PubMed: 33083851
DOI: 10.1007/s00784-020-03637-2 -
Odontology Oct 2023This systematic review evaluated the effects of nano-sized cement particles on the properties of calcium silicate-based cements (CSCs). Using defined keywords, a... (Review)
Review
This systematic review evaluated the effects of nano-sized cement particles on the properties of calcium silicate-based cements (CSCs). Using defined keywords, a literature search was conducted to identify studies that investigated properties of nano-calcium silicate-based cements (NCSCs). A total of 17 studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Results indicated that NCSC formulations have favourable physical (setting time, pH and solubility), mechanical (push out bond strength, compressive strength and indentation hardness) and biological (bone regeneration and foreign body reaction) properties compared with commonly used CSCs. However, the characterization and verification for the nano-particle size of NCSCs were deficient in some studies. Furthermore, the nanosizing was not limited to the cement particles and a number of additives were present. In conclusion, the evidence available for the properties of CSC particles in the nano-range is deficient-such properties could be a result of additives which may have enhanced the properties of the material.
Topics: Oxides; Materials Testing; Calcium Compounds; Silicates; Dental Cements; Glass Ionomer Cements; Drug Combinations
PubMed: 36864211
DOI: 10.1007/s10266-023-00786-0 -
Clinical Oral Investigations Jun 2023This meta-analysis aimed to elucidate the effects of various acid etching patterns on the sensitivity of teeth and their clinical effectiveness following composite resin... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVES
This meta-analysis aimed to elucidate the effects of various acid etching patterns on the sensitivity of teeth and their clinical effectiveness following composite resin repair.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
PubMed, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and Embase databases were searched for relevant studies on the postoperative sensitivity (POS) of composite resin restorations after using different bonding systems. The retrieval was from the inception of the databases to August 13, 2022, with no filter of written language. Literature screening was conducted by two independent researchers. The Cochrane risk-of-bias assessment tool was adopted for quality evaluation, and Stata 15.0 for analysis.
RESULTS
Twenty-five randomized controlled trials were included in the present study. Following resin composite restoration, 1309 restorations were bonded by self-etching (SE) adhesives, whereas 1271 restorations were bonded by total-etching (TE) adhesives. The meta-analyses showed that there is no evidence to prove the SE and TE will affect POS at present when measured using the modified United States Public Health Service (USPHS) criteria [RR = 1.00 (95% CI: 0.96, 1.04)], the World Dental Federation (FDI) [RR = 1.06 (95% CI: 0.98, 1.15)], or the visual analog scale (VAS) [SMD = 0.02 (95% CI: -0.15, 0.20)] scales. At a certain follow-up time, TE adhesives provide better outcomes in terms of color match, marginal staining, and marginal adaptation. In other words, TE adhesives have better esthetic results.
CONCLUSIONS
The type of bonding technique (ER and SE) does not affect the risk and degree of POS in class I/II and class V restorations. Further research is required to verify whether these findings apply to different forms of composite resin restorations.
CLINICAL RELEVANCE
Besides the fact that TE barely increase postoperative sensitivity, it also yields superior cosmetic results.
Topics: Composite Resins; Dental Cements; Dentin-Bonding Agents; Resin Cements; Dental Restoration, Permanent; Acid Etching, Dental; Esthetics, Dental; Dental Marginal Adaptation
PubMed: 37017757
DOI: 10.1007/s00784-023-05007-0 -
The Journal of Evidence-based Dental... Sep 2019The aim of the present systematic review was to evaluate if epoxy resin-based root canal sealers present superior push-out bond strength compared to calcium... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVES
The aim of the present systematic review was to evaluate if epoxy resin-based root canal sealers present superior push-out bond strength compared to calcium silicate-based root canal sealers.
METHODS
The inclusion criteria consisted of in vitro studies that compared the push-out bond strength of epoxy resin-based and calcium silicate-based sealers. A systematic search was performed in the following databases for articles published until February 2018: PubMed, ScienceDirect, Scopus, Web of Science, and OpenGrey. The quality assessment and data extraction of the selected articles were performed. A meta-analysis of the pooled data and the subgroups according to the root thirds was carried out using the RevMan software (P < .05).
RESULTS
The search resulted in 2292 studies. After the duplicate studies were removed and the title and abstract were read, 20 studies were selected and 17 were considered as having a low risk of bias. The pooled meta-analysis comparing epoxy resin-based (n = 467) and paste-to-paste calcium silicate-based root canal sealers (n = 467) demonstrated higher mean push-out bond strength values (P < .001) for the epoxy resin-based root canal sealers; the heterogeneity among studies was 85% (I). The comparisons between epoxy resin-based (n = 358) and premixed ready-to-use calcium silicate-based root canal sealers (n = 358) also demonstrated a significant difference between the sealers (P < .05), with an I of 95%. The subgroup analysis showed that only in the middle third, were increased bond strength values for epoxy resin-based sealer observed (P < .001), with an I of 94%.
CONCLUSIONS
The epoxy resin-based sealer demonstratedhigher push-out bond strength than paste-to-paste calcium silicate-based root canal sealer regardless of the root third assessed. In addition, the epoxy resin-based sealer exhibited increased push-out bond strength in comparison with premixed ready-to-use calcium silicate-based root canal sealer when evaluating the middle third.
Topics: Calcium Compounds; Dental Bonding; Dentin; Epoxy Resins; Humans; Materials Testing; Root Canal Filling Materials
PubMed: 31732099
DOI: 10.1016/j.jebdp.2019.04.004 -
Brazilian Oral Research Mar 2018This study aimed to compare the longevity of different conventional restorative materials placed in posterior primary teeth. This systematic review was conducted... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis Review
This study aimed to compare the longevity of different conventional restorative materials placed in posterior primary teeth. This systematic review was conducted following the PRISMA statement and registered in PROSPERO (CRD42016035775). A comprehensive electronic search without date or language restrictions was performed in PubMed/MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Scopus, Turning Research Into Practice (TRIP) and Clinical Trials databases up to January 2017, selecting randomized clinical trials that assessed the longevity of at least two different conventional restorative materials performed in primary molars. Seventeen studies were included in this systematic review. Pairwise and network meta-analyses were performed and relative risks and 95% confidence intervals (CI) calculated. Two reviewers independently selected the studies, extracted the data, and assessed the risk of bias. Restorations of primary molars with conventional glass ionomer cement showed increased risk of failure than compomer, resin-modified glass ionomer cement, amalgam, and composite resin. Risk of bias was low in most studies (45.38% of all items across studies). Pediatric dentists should avoid conventional glass ionomer cement for restoring primary molars.
Topics: Dental Caries; Dental Materials; Dental Restoration Failure; Dental Restoration, Permanent; Humans; Network Meta-Analysis; Publication Bias; Risk Assessment; Tooth, Deciduous; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 29513886
DOI: 10.1590/1807-3107bor-2018.vol32.0010 -
The Journal of Contemporary Dental... Aug 2023The present systematic review aimed to report the studies concerning the primers in improving bond strength and identifying pertinent primers for a particular dental... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
AIM
The present systematic review aimed to report the studies concerning the primers in improving bond strength and identifying pertinent primers for a particular dental alloy by adhering to PRISMA precepts.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
PubMed and Semantic Scholar databases were scoured for articles using 10 search terms. studies satisfying the inclusion criteria were probed which were meticulously screened and scrutinized for eligibility adhering to the 11 exclusion criteria. The quality assessment tool for studies (QUIN Tool) containing 12 criteria was employed to assess the risk of bias (RoB).
RESULTS
A total of 48 studies assessing shear bond strength (SBS) and 15 studies evaluating tensile bond strength (TBS) were included in the qualitative synthesis. Concerning SBS, 33.4% moderate and 66.6% high RoB was observed. Concerning TBS, 26.8% moderate and 73.2% high RoB was discerned. Seventeen and two studies assessing SBS and TBS, respectively, were included in meta-analyses.
CONCLUSIONS
Shear bond strength and TBS increased for the primed alloys. Cyclic disulfide primer is best-suited for noble alloys when compared with thiol/thione primers. Phosphoric acid- and phosphonic acid ester-based primers are opportune for base alloys.
CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE
The alloy-resin interface (ARI) would fail if an inappropriate primer was selected. Therefore, the selection of an appropriate alloy adhesive primer for an alloy plays a crucial role in prosthetic success. This systematic review would help in the identification and selection of a congruous primer for a selected alloy.
Topics: Databases, Factual; Dental Alloys; Disulfides; Thiones; Dental Cements
PubMed: 38193174
DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10024-3514 -
Journal of Dentistry Oct 2023Answer the PICO question: Do class I and II posterior restorations in permanent teeth placed with high-viscosity glass-ionomer cement (HV-GIC) fail more than composite... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVES
Answer the PICO question: Do class I and II posterior restorations in permanent teeth placed with high-viscosity glass-ionomer cement (HV-GIC) fail more than composite resin (CR) restorations?
DATA
The study was registered in the PROSPERO database (CRD42020138290). Randomized and controlled clinical trials, comparing the performance of HV-GIC and CR in load bearing cavities of posterior permanent teeth were included. Cochrane risk of bias tool and GRADE were used to assess the quality and certainty of the evidence. Meta-analyses were performed for clinical outcomes on USPHS and FDI criteria for 12-, 24- and 36-months follow-ups.
SOURCES
PubMed, Scopus and Web of Science were last searched on April 2, 2022, without language or date restrictions. Reference lists of primary studies and their related article link in PubMed were manually searched.
STUDY SELECTION
Ten studies were included, while data from 8 were used for the meta-analyses. A total of 849 HV-GIC and 800 CR restorations were followed. The primary outcome was the fracture/retention of the restoration, with a comparable performance for both materials on all follow-ups. The 36 months follow-up for class I restorations (longest) showed risk difference of -0,00 (95%CI -0,03 to 0,03; p = 0,98) and no heterogeneity (p = 0,98, I=0%). The certainty of the evidence is moderate, as all included studies were at an uncertain risk of bias.
CONCLUSIONS
HV-GIC and CR presented comparable clinical performance in posterior permanent teeth up to 36 months. HV-GIV wear in class I restorations followed by 24 months was the only poorer result compared to CR.
CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE
Conservative load bearing cavities in permanent posterior teeth can be restored with HV-GIC with comparable clinical performance to CR expected at least up to 3 years. HV-GIC is a valuable direct restorative option for posterior teeth in high caries risk patients, in which CR is frequently associated with failure.
Topics: Humans; Glass Ionomer Cements; Composite Resins; Viscosity; Dental Restoration, Permanent; Dentition, Permanent; Dental Caries
PubMed: 37499738
DOI: 10.1016/j.jdent.2023.104629