-
Journal of Esthetic and Restorative... Feb 2024To assess and compare, through a systematic review of the literature, the biomechanical performance of endocrowns and traditional core-crowns (with and without... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVE
To assess and compare, through a systematic review of the literature, the biomechanical performance of endocrowns and traditional core-crowns (with and without intracanal post) for the rehabilitation of endodontically treated teeth with severe coronal structure damage.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
A systematic search was performed in MEDLINE/PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science databases. In-vitro studies comparing endocrowns with (post-)core-crown restorations were selected and screened by two independent reviewers. The included studies were submitted to the risk of bias analysis using the RoBDEMAT tool and the biomechanical outcomes were collected for qualitative analysis. The extracted data were presented based on comparative analyses among the included studies.
RESULTS
Thirty-one studies were included: 9 studies evaluated restorations of molars, 14 for premolars, and 8 studies evaluated anterior restorations. For the majority of the studies, endocrowns showed either similar or greater survival rates under fatigue and monotonic load than (post-)core-crown restorations, irrespectively of the tooth. The endocrowns showed more favorable failure patterns than (post-)core-crowns, irrespectively of the tooth. Endocrowns produced lower stresses in the restorative material for molars and premolars and in the luting material for premolars than (post-)core-crown restorations. The included studies presented adequate information for most items of the RoBDEMAT risk of bias tool.
CONCLUSION
Endocrowns showed similar or greater biomechanical performance than the traditional (post-)core-crown restorations in most of the evaluated studies.
CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE
This systematic review showed that endocrowns present either similar or greater biomechanical performance than core-crown restorations for anterior and posterior endodontically treated teeth with severe structural damage.
Topics: Humans; Crowns; Dental Materials; Dental Restoration Failure; Dental Stress Analysis; Materials Testing; Tooth, Nonvital; Prosthodontics
PubMed: 37571973
DOI: 10.1111/jerd.13119 -
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 -
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 -
Journal of Dentistry Jul 2015A systematic review was conducted to determine whether the etch-and-rinse or self-etching mode is the best protocol for dentin and enamel adhesion by universal adhesives. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVES
A systematic review was conducted to determine whether the etch-and-rinse or self-etching mode is the best protocol for dentin and enamel adhesion by universal adhesives.
DATA
This report followed the PRISMA Statement. A total of 10 articles were included in the meta-analysis.
SOURCES
Two reviewers performed a literature search up to October 2014 in eight databases: PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, BBO, SciELO, LILACS, IBECS and The Cochrane Library.
STUDY SELECTION
In vitro studies evaluating the bond strength of universal adhesives to dentin and/or enamel by the etch-and-rinse and self-etch strategies were eligible to be selected. Statistical analyses were conducted using RevMan 5.1 (The Cochrane Collaboration, Copenhagen, Denmark). A global comparison was performed with random-effects models at a significance level of p<0.05.
RESULTS
The analysis of dentin micro-tensile bond strength showed no statistically significant difference between the etch-and-rinse and self-etch strategies for mild universal adhesives (p≥0.05). However, for the ultra-mild All-Bond Universal adhesive, the etch-and-rinse strategy was significantly different than the self-etch mode in terms of dentin micro-tensile bond strength, as well as in the global analysis of enamel micro-tensile and micro-shear bond strength (p≤0.05).
CONCLUSIONS
The enamel bond strength of universal adhesives is improved with prior phosphoric acid etching. However, this effect was not evident for dentin with the use of mild universal adhesives with the etch-and-rinse strategy.
CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE
Selective enamel etching prior to the application of a mild universal adhesive is an advisable strategy for optimizing bonding.
Topics: Composite Resins; Dentin; Dentin-Bonding Agents; Materials Testing; Methacrylates; Resin Cements; Surface Properties
PubMed: 25882585
DOI: 10.1016/j.jdent.2015.04.003 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jul 2017Dental sealants were introduced in the 1960s to help prevent dental caries, mainly in the pits and fissures of occlusal tooth surfaces. Sealants act to prevent bacteria... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Dental sealants were introduced in the 1960s to help prevent dental caries, mainly in the pits and fissures of occlusal tooth surfaces. Sealants act to prevent bacteria growth that can lead to dental decay. Evidence suggests that fissure sealants are effective in preventing caries in children and adolescents compared to no sealants. Effectiveness may, however, be related to caries incidence level of the population. This is an update of a review published in 2004, 2008 and 2013.
OBJECTIVES
To compare the effects of different types of fissure sealants in preventing caries in occlusal surfaces of permanent teeth in children and adolescents.
SEARCH METHODS
Cochrane Oral Health's Information Specialist searched: Cochrane Oral Health's Trials Register (to 3 August 2016), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (the Cochrane Library, 2016, Issue 7), MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to 3 August 2016), and Embase Ovid (1980 to 3 August 2016). We searched ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform for ongoing trials to 3 August 2016. No restrictions were placed on language or date of publication.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing sealants with no sealant or a different type of sealant material for preventing caries of occlusal surfaces of premolar or molar teeth in children and adolescents aged up to 20 years. Studies required at least 12 months follow-up. We excluded studies that compared compomers to resins/composites.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently screened search results, extracted data and assessed risk of bias of included studies. We presented outcomes for caries or no caries on occlusal surfaces of permanent molar teeth as odds ratio (OR) or risk ratio (RR). We used mean difference (MD) for mean caries increment. All measures were presented with 95% confidence intervals (CI). We conducted meta-analyses using a random-effects model for comparisons where there were more than three trials; otherwise we used the fixed-effect model. We used GRADE methods to assess evidence quality.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 38 trials that involved a total of 7924 children; seven trials were new for this update (1693 participants). Fifteen trials evaluated the effects of resin-based sealant versus no sealant (3620 participants in 14 studies plus 575 tooth pairs in one study); three trials with evaluated glass ionomer sealant versus no sealant (905 participants); and 24 trials evaluated one type of sealant versus another (4146 participants). Children were aged from 5 to 16 years. Trials rarely reported background exposure to fluoride of trial participants or baseline caries prevalence. Resin-based sealant versus no sealant: second-, third- and fourth-generation resin-based sealants prevented caries in first permanent molars in children aged 5 to 10 years (at 24 months follow-up: OR 0.12, 95% CI 0.08 to 0.19, 7 trials (5 published in the 1970s; 2 in the 2010s), 1548 children randomised, 1322 children evaluated; moderate-quality evidence). If we were to assume that 16% of the control tooth surfaces were decayed during 24 months of follow-up (160 carious teeth per 1000), then applying a resin-based sealant would reduce the proportion of carious surfaces to 5.2% (95% CI 3.13% to 7.37%). Similarly, assuming that 40% of control tooth surfaces were decayed (400 carious teeth per 1000), then applying a resin-based sealant would reduce the proportion of carious surfaces to 6.25% (95% CI 3.84% to 9.63%). If 70% of control tooth surfaces were decayed, there would be 19% decayed surfaces in the sealant group (95% CI 12.3% to 27.2%). This caries-preventive effect was maintained at longer follow-up but evidence quality and quantity was reduced (e.g. at 48 to 54 months of follow-up: OR 0.21, 95% CI 0.16 to 0.28, 4 trials, 482 children evaluated; RR 0.24, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.45, 203 children evaluated). Although studies were generally well conducted, we assessed blinding of outcome assessment for caries at high risk of bias for all trials (blinding of outcome assessment is not possible in sealant studies because outcome assessors can see and identify sealant). Glass ionomer sealant versus no sealant: was evaluated by three studies. Results at 24 months were inconclusive (very low-quality evidence). One sealant versus another sealant: the relative effectiveness of different types of sealants is unknown (very low-quality evidence). We included 24 trials that directly compared two different sealant materials. Comparisons varied in terms of types of sealant assessed, outcome measures chosen and duration of follow-up. Adverse events: only four trials assessed adverse events. No adverse events were reported.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Resin-based sealants applied on occlusal surfaces of permanent molars are effective for preventing caries in children and adolescents. Our review found moderate-quality evidence that resin-based sealants reduced caries by between 11% and 51% compared to no sealant, when measured at 24 months. Similar benefit was seen at timepoints up to 48 months; after longer follow-up, the quantity and quality of evidence was reduced. There was insufficient evidence to judge the effectiveness of glass ionomer sealant or the relative effectiveness of different types of sealants. Information on adverse effects was limited but none occurred where this was reported. Further research with long follow-up is needed.
Topics: Acrylic Resins; Adolescent; Child; Child, Preschool; Dental Caries; Dental Occlusion; Dentition, Permanent; Humans; Molar; Pit and Fissure Sealants; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Silicon Dioxide
PubMed: 28759120
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD001830.pub5 -
The International Journal of... 2016The aim of this study was to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis based on clinical trials that evaluated the main outcomes of glass-ceramic and feldspathic... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
PURPOSE
The aim of this study was to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis based on clinical trials that evaluated the main outcomes of glass-ceramic and feldspathic porcelain laminate veneers.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
A systematic search was carried out in Cochrane and PubMed databases. From the selected studies, the survival rates for porcelain and glass-ceramic veneers were extracted, as were complication rates of clinical outcomes: debonding, fracture/chipping, secondary caries, endodontic problems, severe marginal discoloration, and influence of incisal coverage and enamel/dentin preparation. The Cochran Q test and the I(2) statistic were used to evaluate heterogeneity.
RESULTS
Out of the 899 articles initially identified, 13 were included for analysis. Metaregression analysis showed that the types of ceramics and follow-up periods had no influence on failure rate. The estimated overall cumulative survival rate was 89% (95% CI: 84% to 94%) in a median follow-up period of 9 years. The estimated survival for glass-ceramic was 94% (95% CI: 87% to 100%), and for feldspathic porcelain veneers, 87% (95% CI: 82% to 93%). The meta-analysis showed rates for the following events: debonding: 2% (95% CI: 1% to 4%); fracture/chipping: 4% (95% CI: 3% to 6%); secondary caries: 1% (95% CI: 0% to 3%); severe marginal discoloration: 2% (95% CI: 1% to 10%); endodontic problems: 2% (95% CI: 1% to 3%); and incisal coverage odds ratio: 1.25 (95% CI: 0.33 to 4.73). It was not possible to perform meta-analysis of the influence of enamel/dentin preparation on failure rates.
CONCLUSION
Glass-ceramic and porcelain laminate veneers have high survival rates. Fracture/ chipping was the most frequent complication, providing evidence that ceramic veneers are a safe treatment option that preserve tooth structure.
Topics: Aluminum Silicates; Ceramics; Dental Porcelain; Dental Restoration Failure; Dental Veneers; Humans; Potassium Compounds; Surface Properties; Survival Analysis; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 26757327
DOI: 10.11607/ijp.4315 -
Clinical Oral Implants Research Jan 2022To analyze the clinical outcomes of all-ceramic single crowns (SCs) and fixed dental prostheses (FDPs) supported by ceramic implants. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVE
To analyze the clinical outcomes of all-ceramic single crowns (SCs) and fixed dental prostheses (FDPs) supported by ceramic implants.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Based on a focused question and customized PICO framework, electronic (Medline/EMBASE/Cochrane) and manual searches for studies reporting the clinical outcomes of all-ceramic SCs and FDPs supported by ceramic implants ≥12 months were performed. The primary outcomes were reconstruction survival and the chipping proportion. The secondary outcomes were implant survival, technical complications, and patient-related outcome measurements. Meta-analyses were performed after 1, 2, and 5 years using random-effect meta-analyses.
RESULTS
Eight of the 1,403 initially screened titles and 55 full texts were included. Five reported on monolithic lithium disilicate (LS2) SCs, one on veneered zirconia SCs, and two on veneered zirconia SCs and FDPs, which reported all on cement-retained reconstructions (mean observation: 12.0-61.0 months). Meta-analyses estimated a 5-year survival rate of 94% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 82%-100%) for overall implant survival. Reconstruction survival proportions after 5 years were: monolithic LS2, 100% (95%CI: 95%-100%); veneered zirconia SCs, 89% (95%CI: 62%-100%); and veneered zirconia FDPs 94% (95%CI: 81%-100%). The chipping proportion after 5 years was: monolithic LS2, 2% (95%CI: 0%-11%); veneered zirconia SCs, 38% (95%CI: 24%-54%); and veneered zirconia FDPs, 57% (95%CI: 38%-76%). Further outcomes were summarized descriptively.
CONCLUSIONS
Due to the limited data available, only tendencies could be identified. All-ceramic reconstructions supported by ceramic implants demonstrated promising survival rates after mid-term observation. However, high chipping proportions of veneered zirconia SCs and, particularly, FDPs diminished the overall outcome. Monolithic LS2 demonstrated fewer clinical complications. Monolithic reconstructions could be a valid treatment option for ceramic implants.
Topics: Ceramics; Crowns; Dental Implants; Dental Porcelain; Dental Prosthesis Design; Dental Prosthesis, Implant-Supported; Dental Restoration Failure; Humans; Metal Ceramic Alloys; Zirconium
PubMed: 34665900
DOI: 10.1111/clr.13871 -
Clinical Oral Investigations Jan 2022Address oral health-related quality of life (OHRQoL) and patient satisfaction rehabilitated by the all-on-four concept as the primary outcome. (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVE
Address oral health-related quality of life (OHRQoL) and patient satisfaction rehabilitated by the all-on-four concept as the primary outcome.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
A search was performed in the PubMed/MEDLINE, Web of Science, and Cochrane databases according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis criteria (PRISMA). The PICO question was used to address the following specific question: "What is the level of oral health-related quality of life and satisfaction in edentulous patients and with atrophic jaws who received dental implants for full-arch implant-supported restorations following the all-on-four in the mandible or maxilla?"
RESULTS
Eleven studies including 693 patients aged 55 to 71 years were selected. The shortest follow-up period was 3 months and the longest, 7 years. Regarding the OHRQoL assessment method and patient satisfaction, the oral health impact profile (OHIP) and the visual analog scale (VAS) were the most used.
CONCLUSION
OHRQoL and satisfaction in patients whose rehabilitation was based on the all-on-four concept were high. However, the current evidence is still limited by the quality of the available studies, making long-term randomized studies necessary to establish the real effectiveness of this surgical-prosthetic approach.
CLINICAL RELEVANCE
Carefully analyze the aspects related to satisfaction and oral health-related quality of life of rehabilitated patients with implant-supported total prostheses made according to the all-on-four concept, aiming to achieve success through procedures with greater predictability and less complexity, as these are directly associated with recovery oral health of edentulous individuals with less morbidity and minimized costs.
Topics: Dental Implants; Dental Prosthesis, Implant-Supported; Denture, Complete; Humans; Jaw, Edentulous; Patient Satisfaction; Personal Satisfaction; Quality of Life; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 34647147
DOI: 10.1007/s00784-021-04213-y -
Journal of the American Dental... Feb 2023The goal of restoring caries lesions is to protect the pulp, prevent progression of the disease process, and restore the form and function of the tooth. The purpose of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
The goal of restoring caries lesions is to protect the pulp, prevent progression of the disease process, and restore the form and function of the tooth. The purpose of this systematic review was to determine the effect of different direct restorative materials for treating cavitated caries lesions on anterior and posterior primary and permanent teeth.
TYPE OF STUDIES REVIEWED
The authors included parallel and split-mouth randomized controlled trials comparing the effectiveness of direct restorative materials commercially available in the United States placed in vital, nonendodontically treated primary and permanent teeth. Pairs of reviewers independently conducted study selection, data extraction, and assessments of risk of bias and certainty of the evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach. The authors conducted pair-wise meta-analyses to summarize the evidence and calculated measures of association and their 95% CIs.
RESULTS
Thirty-eight randomized controlled trials were eligible for analysis, which included data on Class I and Class II restorations on primary teeth and Class I, Class II, Class III, Class V, and root surface restorations on permanent teeth. Included studies assessed the effect of amalgam, resin composite, compomer, conventional glass ionomer cement, resin-modified glass isomer cement, and preformed metal crowns. Moderate to very low certainty evidence suggested varying levels of effectiveness across restorative materials.
CONCLUSIONS AND PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS
Owing to a relatively low event rate across various outcomes indicating restoration failure, there was limited evidence to support important differences between direct restorative materials used in practice.
Topics: United States; Humans; Dental Restoration, Permanent; American Dental Association; Dental Caries Susceptibility; Dental Materials; Dental Caries; Composite Resins; Tooth, Deciduous; Glass Ionomer Cements
PubMed: 36610925
DOI: 10.1016/j.adaj.2022.09.012 -
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