-
Journal of Conservative Dentistry : JCD 2022Advances in adhesive technologies and escalation in esthetic demands have increased indications for tooth-colored, partial coverage restorations. Recently, material... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Advances in adhesive technologies and escalation in esthetic demands have increased indications for tooth-colored, partial coverage restorations. Recently, material knowledge has evolved, new materials have been developed, and no systematic review has answered the question posed by practitioners: Is the clinical efficacy of resin or ceramic better, for inlay, onlay, and overlay in the long run?
AIM
The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate the clinical performance of ceramic and resin inlays, onlays, and overlays and to identify the complication types associated with the main clinical outcomes.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Two reviewers (VN and AJ) searched PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Central registry of controlled trials for published articles between 1983 and 2020 conforming to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guidelines for systematic reviews. Only clinical studies which met the following criteria were included (1) studies regarding ceramic and resin inlays, onlays, and overlays were included; (2) randomized controlled trials, retrospective or prospective studies conducted in humans; (3) studies with a dropout rate <50% 4) studies with a follow-up higher than 5 years.
RESULTS
Of 1718 articles, 21 articles were selected. At 5 years, the estimated survival rates for resin ( = 129) was 86%, feldspathic porcelain ( = 1048) was 90%, and glass ceramic ( = 2218) was 92%; at 10 years, the survival of resin was 75% ( = 115), feldspathic porcelain was 91% ( = 1829), and glass ceramic was 89% ( = 1075).
CONCLUSION
The meta-regression indicated that ceramic partial coverage restorations (feldspathic porcelain and glass-ceramic) outperformed resin partial coverage restorations both at 5-year and 10-year follow-up. When compared between ceramic types, glass ceramics outperformed feldspathic porcelain at 5 years' follow-up and feldspathic porcelain outperformed glass ceramics at 10 years' follow-up. The failures were mostly due to fractures (6.2%), endodontic problems (3%), secondary caries (1.7%), and debonding which was 0.9%.
PubMed: 36187858
DOI: 10.4103/jcd.jcd_184_22 -
The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry Apr 2019Different parameters can influence the adaptation of computer-assisted design and computer-assisted manufacturing (CAD-CAM) inlay/onlay restorations. However, systematic... (Review)
Review
STATEMENT OF PROBLEM
Different parameters can influence the adaptation of computer-assisted design and computer-assisted manufacturing (CAD-CAM) inlay/onlay restorations. However, systematic reviews to identify and discuss these parameters are lacking.
PURPOSE
The purpose of this systematic review was to summarize the scientific literature investigating all parameters that can influence both the marginal and internal adaptation of CAD-CAM inlay/onlay restorations.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
An electronic search was conducted by 2 independent reviewers for studies published in English between January 1, 2007 and September 20, 2017 on the PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, and Web of Science databases and in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement. Factors investigated in the selected articles included the type of CAD-CAM system, virtual space parameters, version of the software, type of block, luting procedure, type of restoration, sample size and aging procedure, evaluation method, and number of measurement points per specimen.
RESULTS
A total of 162 articles were identified, of which 23 articles met the inclusion criteria. Nine studies investigated adaptation with different restorative materials, 2 evaluated adaptation according to the type of preparation design, 9 compared adaptation before/after thermomechanical loading, and 2 before/after cementation, 1 study investigated marginal adaptation based on whether the optical scan was made intraorally or extraorally, 1 compared adaptation with 5 and 3 axis CAM systems, and 1 assessed adaptation with 4 different intraoral scanners. The risk of bias was high for 7, medium for 15, and low for 1 of the studies reviewed. The high level of heterogeneity across the studies excluded meta-analysis.
CONCLUSIONS
Most of the studies reported clinically acceptable values for marginal adaptation. The performance of a CAD-CAM system is influenced by the type of restorative material. A nonretentive cavity preparation exhibited better adaptation than a retentive preparation. Most studies showed that thermomechanical loading affected the quality of marginal adaptation. Cementation increased marginal discrepancies. No statistically significant difference was found for marginal fit of onlays between intraoral and extraoral optical scans using a stone die. The number of milling axes, the type of digital camera, and the region measured were statistically significant in relation to marginal/internal adaptation. Values of adaptation recorded failed to reproduce the preestablished spacer parameters in the software. Clarification is needed concerning adaptation according to the type of preparation design, the type of material, the choice of intrinsic parameters for the CAD process, the type and shape of milling instruments, and the behavior of the material during milling. Adaptation of CAD-CAM inlay/onlays should be evaluated under clinical conditions.
Topics: Computer-Aided Design; Crowns; Dental Marginal Adaptation; Dental Materials; Dental Prosthesis Design; Inlays
PubMed: 30509548
DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2018.06.006 -
Journal of Dental Research Aug 2016This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the survival rate of ceramic and resin inlays, onlays, and overlays and to identify the complication types... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the survival rate of ceramic and resin inlays, onlays, and overlays and to identify the complication types associated with the main clinical outcomes. Two reviewers searched PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials for articles published between 1983 through April 2015, conforming to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines for systematic reviews. Clinical studies meeting the following criteria were included: 1) studies related to resin and ceramic inlays, onlays, and overlays; 2) prospective, retrospective, or randomized controlled trials conducted in humans; 3) studies with a dropout rate of less than 30%; and 4) studies with a follow-up longer than 5 y. Of 1,389 articles, 14 met the inclusion criteria. The meta-regression indicated that the type of ceramic material (feldspathic porcelain vs. glass-ceramic), study design (retrospective vs. prospective), follow-up time (5 vs. 10 y), and study setting (university vs. private clinic) did not affect the survival rate. Estimated survival rates for glass-ceramics and feldspathic porcelain were between 92% and 95% at 5 y (n = 5,811 restorations) and were 91% at 10 y (n = 2,154 restorations). Failures were related to fractures/chipping (4%), followed by endodontic complications (3%), secondary caries (1%), debonding (1%), and severe marginal staining (0%). Odds ratios (95% confidence intervals) were 0.19 (0.04 to 0.96) and 0.54 (0.17 to 1.69) for pulp vitality and type of tooth involved (premolars vs. molars), respectively. Ceramic inlays, onlays, and overlays showed high survival rates at 5 y and 10 y, and fractures were the most frequent cause of failure.
Topics: Ceramics; Composite Resins; Dental Materials; Dental Restoration Failure; Denture, Overlay; Humans; Inlays
PubMed: 27287305
DOI: 10.1177/0022034516652848 -
Journal of Dentistry Sep 2016A systematic review was conducted to evaluate clinical (survival) and in vitro (fracture strength) studies of endocrown restorations compared to conventional treatments... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVES
A systematic review was conducted to evaluate clinical (survival) and in vitro (fracture strength) studies of endocrown restorations compared to conventional treatments (intraradicular posts, direct composite resin, inlay/onlay).
DATA
This report followed the PRISMA Statement. A total of 8 studies were included in this review.
SOURCES
Two reviewers performed a literature search up to February 2016 in seven databases: PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, BBO, SciELO, LILACS and IBECS.
STUDY SELECTION
Only clinical trials and in vitro studies that evaluated endocrowns were included. Case reports, case series, pilot studies, reviews and in vitro studies that evaluated properties other than fracture strength of endocrowns were excluded. From the 103 eligible articles, 8 remained in the qualitative analysis (3 clinical trials and 5 in vitro studies), and the meta-analysis was performed for the 5 in vitro studies. A global comparison was performed with random-effects models at a significance level of p<0.05.
RESULTS
Clinical trials showed a success rate of endocrowns varying from 94 to 100%. The global analysis in posterior and anterior teeth demonstrated that endocrowns had higher fracture strength than conventional treatments (p=0.03). However, when comparing endocrowns to conventional treatments only in posterior teeth (subgroup analyses), no statistically significant differences were found between treatments (p=0.07; I(2)=62%).
CONCLUSION
The literature suggests that endocrowns may perform similarly or better than the conventional treatments using intraradicular posts, direct composite resin or inlay/onlay restorations.
CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE
Although further studies are still necessary to confirm the present findings, endocrowns show potential application for the rehabilitation of severely compromised, endodontically treated teeth.
Topics: Composite Resins; Crowns; Humans; Inlays; Tooth, Nonvital
PubMed: 27421989
DOI: 10.1016/j.jdent.2016.07.005 -
Journal of Esthetic and Restorative... May 2018This systematic review aimed to evaluate the longevity of ceramic onlays and identify the factors that influence their survival. (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVE
This systematic review aimed to evaluate the longevity of ceramic onlays and identify the factors that influence their survival.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
An electronic search was conducted through PubMed (MEDLINE), Google Scholar and Cochrane Library, up to August 2017. The literature search aimed to retrieve all the clinical studies on the longevity of ceramic onlays. Ceramic onlay was defined as any partial ceramic restoration that covers at least one cusp.
RESULTS
A total of 21 studies met the selection criteria and were deemed suitable for this review. The medium-term studies (2-5 years) indicated a survival rate of 91-100%, and the long term studies (more than 5 years) showed a survival rate of 71-98.5%. The most common reason of failure was fracture, followed by debonding and caries. The most common patterns of deterioration were loss of margin integrity and discoloration. Onlay longevity can be enhanced if the preparation allows for at least 2 mm occlusal ceramic thickness and incorporates additional retentive features. Restoring teeth that are nonvital, teeth in a more posterior region, or teeth for patients with parafunctional habits appears to be associated with greater ceramic failure. Fabrication materials and methods, and adhesive bonding system did not seem to influence onlay longevity.
CONCLUSIONS
The clinical performance of the ceramic onlay appears acceptable regardless of the follow-up duration. Fracture of the ceramic onlay is the predominant cause of failure, and the most observed form of deterioration was associated with the restoration margin.
CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE
Ceramic onlay appears to be a reliable option to restore posterior teeth. The most common pattern of failure is fracture of the ceramic material. The risk of ceramic onlay failure seems to increase if the restored tooth is nonvital and the patient demonstrates parafunctional habits.
Topics: Ceramics; Dental Porcelain; Dental Restoration Failure; Humans; Inlays; Tooth; Tooth, Nonvital
PubMed: 29676497
DOI: 10.1111/jerd.12384 -
International Journal of Environmental... Oct 2020A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed to analyze the survival of onlay restorations in the posterior region, their clinical behavior according to the... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed to analyze the survival of onlay restorations in the posterior region, their clinical behavior according to the material used (ceramic reinforced with lithium disilicate, conventional feldspathic ceramic or reinforced with leucite; hybrid materials and composite), possible complications, and the factors influencing restoration success. The systematic review was based on the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) statement, without publication date or language restrictions. An electronic search was made in the PubMed, Scopus, Embase, and Cochrane databases. After discarding duplicate publications and studies that failed to meet the inclusion criteria, the articles were selected based on the population, intervention, comparison, outcome (PICO) question. The following variables were considered in the qualitative and quantitative analyses: restoration survival rate (determined by several clinical parameters), the influence of the material used upon the clinical behavior of the restorations, and the complications recorded over follow-up. A total of 29 articles were selected for the qualitative analysis and 27 for the quantitative analysis. The estimated restoration survival rate was 94.2%. The predictors of survival were the duration of follow-up (beta = -0.001; = 0.001) and the onlay material used (beta = -0.064; = 0.028). Composite onlays were associated with a lower survival rate over time. Onlays are a good, conservative, and predictable option for restoring dental defects in the posterior region, with a survival rate of over 90%. The survival rate decreases over time and with the use of composite as onlay material.
Topics: Ceramics; Composite Resins; Dental Restoration Failure; Humans; Inlays
PubMed: 33086485
DOI: 10.3390/ijerph17207582 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Sep 2015Endodontic treatment involves removal of the dental pulp and its replacement by a root canal filling. Restoration of root filled teeth can be challenging due to... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Endodontic treatment involves removal of the dental pulp and its replacement by a root canal filling. Restoration of root filled teeth can be challenging due to structural differences between vital and non-vital root-filled teeth. Direct restoration involves placement of a restorative material e.g. amalgam or composite, directly into the tooth. Indirect restorations consist of cast metal or ceramic (porcelain) crowns. The choice of restoration depends on the amount of remaining tooth, and may influence durability and cost. The decision to use a post and core in addition to the crown is clinician driven. The comparative clinical performance of crowns or conventional fillings used to restore root-filled teeth is unknown. This review updates the original, which was published in 2012.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of restoration of endodontically treated teeth (with or without post and core) by crowns versus conventional filling materials.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the following databases: the Cochrane Oral Health Group's Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE via OVID, EMBASE via OVID, CINAHL via EBSCO, LILACS via BIREME. We also searched the reference lists of articles and ongoing trials registries.There were no restrictions regarding language or date of publication. The search is up-to-date as of 26 March 2015.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi-randomised controlled trials in participants with permanent teeth that have undergone endodontic treatment. Single full coverage crowns compared with any type of filling materials for direct restoration or indirect partial restorations (e.g. inlays and onlays). Comparisons considered the type of post and core used (cast or prefabricated post), if any.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently extracted data from the included trial and assessed its risk of bias. We carried out data analysis using the 'treatment as allocated' patient population, expressing estimates of intervention effect for dichotomous data as risk ratios, with 95% confidence intervals (CI).
MAIN RESULTS
We included one trial, which was judged to be at high risk of performance, detection and attrition bias. The 117 participants with a root-filled, premolar tooth restored with a carbon fibre post, were randomised to either a full coverage metal-ceramic crown or direct adhesive composite restoration. None experienced a catastrophic failure (i.e. when the restoration cannot be repaired), although only 104 teeth were included in the final, three-year assessment. There was no clear difference between the crown and composite group and the composite only group for non-catastrophic failures of the restoration (1/54 versus 3/53; RR 0.33; 95% CI 0.04 to 3.05) or failures of the post (2/54 versus 1/53; RR 1.96; 95% CI 0.18 to 21.01) at three years. The quality of the evidence for these outcomes is very low. There was no evidence available for any of our secondary outcomes: patient satisfaction and quality of life, incidence or recurrence of caries, periodontal health status, and costs.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is insufficient evidence to assess the effects of crowns compared to conventional fillings for the restoration of root-filled teeth. Until more evidence becomes available, clinicians should continue to base decisions about how to restore root-filled teeth on their own clinical experience, whilst taking into consideration the individual circumstances and preferences of their patients.
Topics: Adult; Crowns; Dental Restoration, Permanent; Female; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Post and Core Technique; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Tooth Root; Tooth, Nonvital
PubMed: 26403154
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD009109.pub3 -
Clinical Oral Investigations Dec 2021The survival rate of indirect partial adhesive restorations on vital versus endodontically treated teeth is still controversial. The hypothesis is that there may be a... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVES
The survival rate of indirect partial adhesive restorations on vital versus endodontically treated teeth is still controversial. The hypothesis is that there may be a difference in the survival rate of partial adhesive restorations performed on non-vital teeth compared to vital teeth.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
This systematic review was conducted following the PRISMA guidelines. The considered clinical studies investigated the outcomes of adhesive inlays, onlays, and overlays conducted over the past 40 years, focusing on Kaplan-Meier survival curves to calculate the hazard ratio (primary objective) and the survival rate (secondary objective) between vital and non-vital teeth. The risk of bias was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Studies included in the review were identified through bibliographic research on electronic databases ("PubMed," "Scopus," "Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trial," and "Embase"). The K agreement between the two screening reviewers was evaluated.
RESULTS
A total of 55,793 records were identified on PubMed, Scopus, and other bibliographic sources, and after the application of the eligibility and inclusion criteria, eight articles were included for qualitative analysis and six for quantitative analysis. The meta-analysis of the primary and secondary outcomes demonstrated that hazard ratios (HR = 8.41, 95% CI: [4.50, 15.72]) and survival rates (OR = 3.24, 95% CI: [1.76, 5.82]) seemed more favorable for indirect partial adhesive restorations on vital teeth than for those on endodontically treated teeth.
CONCLUSIONS
Within the limits of this study, these findings suggest that the risk of failure of indirect partial adhesive restorations on endodontically treated teeth is higher than on vital teeth.
CLINICAL RELEVANCE
The use of partial adhesive restorations on vital and endodontically treated teeth showed different long-term clinical outcomes.
Topics: Composite Resins; Dental Restoration Failure; Dental Restoration, Permanent; Humans; Inlays; Kaplan-Meier Estimate; Mass Screening; Tooth, Nonvital
PubMed: 34628547
DOI: 10.1007/s00784-021-04187-x -
Journal of Dentistry Nov 2016The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to assess the differences in clinical performance in direct and indirect resin composite restorations in... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVES
The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to assess the differences in clinical performance in direct and indirect resin composite restorations in permanent posterior teeth.
SOURCES
PubMed, the Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Scopus, LILACS, BBO, ClinicalTrials.gov and SiGLE were searched without restrictions.
STUDY SELECTION
We included randomized clinical trials (RCTs) that compared the clinical performance of direct and indirect resin composite restorations in Class I and Class II cavities in permanent teeth, with at least two years of follow-up. The risk of bias tool suggested by Cochrane Collaboration was used for quality assessment.
DATA
After duplicate removal, 912 studies were identified. Twenty fulfilled the inclusion criteria after the abstract screening. Two articles were added after a hand search of the reference list of included studies. After examination, nine RCTs were included in the qualitative analysis and five were considered to have a 'low' risk of bias. The overall risk difference in longevity between direct and indirect resin composite restorations in permanent posterior teeth (p>0.05) at five-year follow-up was 1.494 [0.893-2.500], and regardless of the type of tooth restored, that of molar and premolars was 0.716 [0.177-2.888] at three-year follow-up.
CONCLUSIONS
Based on the findings, there was no difference in longevity of direct and indirect resin composite restorations regardless of the type of material and the restored tooth.
CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE
Contemporary dentistry is based on minimally invasive restorations. Any indication of a less conservative technique must have unquestionable advantages. In vitro and in vivo studies reveal contradictory evidence of the clinical performance of direct and indirect resin composite restorations in posterior teeth. Thus this study clarified this doubt.
Topics: Composite Resins; Dental Caries; Dental Restoration, Permanent; Dentition, Permanent; Humans; Molar
PubMed: 27523636
DOI: 10.1016/j.jdent.2016.08.003 -
The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry Feb 2021The polycrystalline nature of zirconia hinders its ability to bond to tooth structure. Consequently, durable bonding to zirconia has been challenging. In vitro studies... (Review)
Review
STATEMENT OF PROBLEM
The polycrystalline nature of zirconia hinders its ability to bond to tooth structure. Consequently, durable bonding to zirconia has been challenging. In vitro studies have evaluated various methods of bonding to zirconia, but clinical data are sparse.
PURPOSE
The purpose of this systematic review was to critically appraise clinical studies investigating the survival rate of resin-bonded zirconia fixed partial dentures (FPDs), inlay-retained zirconia FPDs, and zirconia veneers.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
Searches were performed in MEDLINE, EMBASE, PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar. Clinical studies of over 12 months duration involving bonded zirconia restorations between 1990 and July 2018 were reviewed. All suitable studies were assessed for quality by using a "Questionnaire for selecting articles on Dental Prostheses".
RESULTS
Eight studies were ultimately included. Three studies examined posterior inlay-retained FPDs with estimated survival rates of 12.1% at 10 years, 95.8% at 5 years, and 100% at 20 months. Five studies reviewed anterior, resin-bonded FPDs, all of which had a 3- to 10-year survival rate of 100%. Debonds occurred in all studies, but the prostheses could usually be rebonded.
CONCLUSIONS
With correctly designed buccal and lingual coverage retainers and minimal if any veneering porcelain, zirconia-based, posterior, inlay-retained FPDs seem to have a high clinical survival rate. The role of bonding efficacy in this survival rate is unknown. Anterior, cantilevered, resin-bonded zirconia FPDs seem to have a high clinical survival rate. While these prostheses can debond, fracture of the entire prosthesis is unlikely, so they may be rebonded. To bond zirconia, the use of airborne-particle abrasion with 50-μm alumina (AlO) at 0.1 to 0.25 MPa in combination with a phosphate monomer-containing adhesive resin is recommended until further studies become available. Dental dam isolation is also recommended during zirconia bonding.
Topics: Dental Bonding; Dental Materials; Dental Porcelain; Denture Design; Denture, Partial, Fixed; Treatment Outcome; Zirconium
PubMed: 32115220
DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2019.12.017