-
Journal of Dentistry Mar 2024This systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA) aimed to establish a clinically relevant hierarchy of the different adhesive and/or restorative approaches to... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
AIM
This systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA) aimed to establish a clinically relevant hierarchy of the different adhesive and/or restorative approaches to restore cavitated root caries lesions through the synthesis of available evidence.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
A systematic search was conducted in Medline/Web of Science/Embase/ Cochrane Library/Scopus/grey literature. RCTs investigating ≥2 restorative strategies (restorative /adhesive materials) for root caries lesions in adult patients were included. Risk of bias within studies was assessed (Cochrane_RoB-2) and the primary outcome was survival rate of restorations at different follow-up times (6-/12-/24-months). Network meta-analyses were conducted using a random effects model stratified by follow-up times. I-statistics assessed the ratio of true to total variance in the observed effects. All available combinations of adhesives (1-SE: one-step self-etch; 2-3ER: two-/three-step etch-and-rinse) and restorative materials (conventional composite (CC) as well as conventional and resin-modified glass ionomer cements (GIC, RMGIC)) were included. Risk of bias across studies and confidence in NMA (CINeMA) were assessed.
RESULTS
547 studies were identified and nine were eligible for the NMA. In total, 1263 root caries lesions have been restored in 473 patients in the included clinical trials. Patients involved were either healthy (n = 6 trials), living in nursing homes (n = 1 trial) or received head-and-neck radiotherapy (n = 2 trials). There was statistically weak evidence to favour either of material/material combination regarding the survival rate. A tendency for higher survival rate (24-months) was observed for 2-3ER/CC (OR 2.65; CI=1.45/4.84) as well as RMGIC (OR 2.05; CI=1.17/3.61) compared to GIC. These findings were though not statistically significant and confidence of the NMA was low.
CONCLUSION
An evidence-based choice of restorative strategy for managing cavitated root caries lesions is currently impossible. There is a clear need for more standardised, well-designed RCTs evaluating the retention rate of root caries restoration approaches.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Root Caries; Dental Cements; Network Meta-Analysis; Dental Restoration, Permanent; Dental Materials; Dental Caries; Glass Ionomer Cements; Composite Resins
PubMed: 37977410
DOI: 10.1016/j.jdent.2023.104776 -
International Journal of Oral and... Jul 2016The use of titanium implants is well documented and they have high survival and success rates. However, when used as reduced-diameter implants, the risk of fracture is... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
The use of titanium implants is well documented and they have high survival and success rates. However, when used as reduced-diameter implants, the risk of fracture is increased. Narrow diameter implants (NDIs) of titanium-zirconium (Ti-Zr) alloy have recently been developed (Roxolid; Institut Straumann AG). Ti-Zr alloys (two highly biocompatible materials) demonstrate higher tensile strength than commercially pure titanium. The aim of this systematic review was to summarize the existing clinical evidence on dental NDIs made from Ti-Zr. A systematic literature search was performed using the Medline database to find relevant articles on clinical studies published in the English language up to December 2014. Nine clinical studies using Ti-Zr implants were identified. Overall, 607 patients received 922 implants. The mean marginal bone loss was 0.36±0.06mm after 1 year and 0.41±0.09mm after 2 years. The follow-up period ranged from 3 to 36 months. Mean survival and success rates were 98.4% and 97.8% at 1 year after implant placement and 97.7% and 97.3% at 2 years. Narrow diameter Ti-Zr dental implants show survival and success rates comparable to regular diameter titanium implants (>95%) in the short term. Long-term follow-up clinical data are needed to confirm the excellent clinical performance of these implants.
Topics: Dental Alloys; Dental Implants; Dental Prosthesis Design; Humans; Materials Testing; Tensile Strength; Titanium; Zirconium
PubMed: 26852292
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijom.2016.01.004 -
The International Journal of... 2015Titanium dental implants have a high success rate; however, there are instances when a modified surface may be desirable. The aim of this article was to systematically... (Review)
Review
PURPOSE
Titanium dental implants have a high success rate; however, there are instances when a modified surface may be desirable. The aim of this article was to systematically review the different types of implant coatings that have been studied clinically, in vivo and in vitro, and the coating techniques being implemented.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
The literature was searched electronically and manually through The Cochrane Library, Medline, and PubMed databases to identify articles studying dental implant surfaces and coating techniques. The database search strategy revealed 320 articles, of which 52 articles were considered eligible--40 in relation to implant coatings and 12 to the coating technique. An additional 30 articles were retrieved by hand search.
RESULTS
Several materials were identified as possible candidates for dental implant coatings; these include carbon, bisphosphonates, bone stimulating factors, bioactive glass and bioactive ceramics, fluoride, hydroxyapatite (HA) and calcium phosphate, and titanium/titanium nitride. HA coatings still remain the most biocompatible coatings even though the more innovative bioglass suggests promising results. The most common coating techniques are plasma spraying and hydrocoating. More recent techniques such as the nanoscale technology are also discussed.
CONCLUSIONS
Several implant coatings have been proposed, and some appear to give better clinical results and improved properties than others. Clinical trials are still required to provide compelling evidence-based results for their long-term successful outcomes.
Topics: Coated Materials, Biocompatible; Dental Implants; Dental Materials; Dental Prosthesis Design; Electrochemical Techniques; Humans; Plasma Gases; Surface Properties
PubMed: 25588174
DOI: 10.11607/ijp.4124 -
International Journal of Oral and... Sep 2014Bone quality and quantity are important factors with regard to the survival rate of dental implants. The aim of this study was to conduct a systematic review of dental... (Review)
Review
Bone quality and quantity are important factors with regard to the survival rate of dental implants. The aim of this study was to conduct a systematic review of dental implants inserted in low-density bone and to determine the survival rate of dental implants with surface treatments over time. A systematic review of the literature was undertaken by two independent individuals; the Medline/PubMed database was searched for the period July 1975 to March 2013. Relevant reports on bone quality and osseointegration of dental implants were selected. The search retrieved 1018 references, and after inclusion and exclusion criteria were applied, 19 studies were selected for review. A total of 3937 patients, who had received a total of 12,465 dental implants, were analyzed. The survival rates of dental implants according to the bone density were: type I, 97.6%; type II, 96.2%; type III, 96.5%; and type IV, 88.8%. The survival rate of treated surface implants inserted in low-density bone was higher (97.1%) than that of machined surface implants (91.6%). Surface-treated dental implants inserted in low-density bone have a high survival rate and may be indicated for oral rehabilitation. However, more randomized studies are required to better evaluate this issue.
Topics: Bone Density; Dental Implantation, Endosseous; Dental Implants; Dental Prosthesis Design; Dental Prosthesis Retention; Dental Prosthesis, Implant-Supported; Dental Restoration Failure; Humans; Osseointegration; Surface Properties
PubMed: 24679842
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijom.2014.02.016 -
Clinical Oral Implants Research Sep 2023In patients with dental implants, what is the effect of transmucosal components made of materials other than titanium (alloys) compared to titanium (alloys) on the... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVES
In patients with dental implants, what is the effect of transmucosal components made of materials other than titanium (alloys) compared to titanium (alloys) on the surrounding peri-implant tissues after at least 1 year?
MATERIALS AND METHODS
This systematic review included eligible randomized controlled trials identified through an electronic search (Medline, Embase and Web of Science) comparing alternative abutment materials versus titanium (alloy) abutments with a minimum follow-up of 1 year and including at least 10 patients/group. Primary outcomes were peri-implant marginal bone level (MBL) and probing depth (PD), these were evaluated based on meta-analyses. Abutment survival, biological and technical complications and aesthetic outcomes were the secondary outcomes. The risk of bias was assessed with the RoB2-tool. This review is registered in PROSPERO with the number (CRD42022376487).
RESULTS
From 5129 titles, 580 abstracts were selected, and 111 full-text articles were screened. Finally, 12 articles could be included. Concerning the primary outcomes (MBL and PD), no differences could be seen between titanium abutment and zirconia or alumina abutments, not after 1 year (MBL: zirconia: MD = -0.24, 95% CI: -0.65 to 0.16, alumina: MD = -0.06, 95% CI: -0.29 to 0.17) (PD: zirconia: MD = -0.06, 95% CI: -0.41 to 0.30, alumina: MD = -0.29, 95% CI: -0.96 to 0.38), nor after 5 years. Additionally, no differences were found concerning the biological complications and aesthetic outcomes. The most important technical finding was abutment fracture in the ceramic group and chipping of the veneering material.
CONCLUSIONS
Biologically, titanium and zirconia abutments seem to function equally up to 5 years after placement.
Topics: Humans; Titanium; Dental Implants; Alloys; Aluminum Oxide
PubMed: 37750527
DOI: 10.1111/clr.14159 -
Clinical Oral Investigations Sep 2023The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to assess the comparative clinical success and survival of intracoronal indirect restorations using gold, lithium... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVES
The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to assess the comparative clinical success and survival of intracoronal indirect restorations using gold, lithium disilicate, leucite, and indirect composite materials.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
This systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted following the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions and PRISMA guidelines. The protocol for this study was registered in PROSPERO (registration number: CRD42021233185). A comprehensive literature search was conducted across various databases and sources, including PubMed/Medline, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, ClinicalTrials.gov, and gray literature. A total of 7826 articles were screened on title and abstract. Articles were not excluded based on the vitality of teeth, the language of the study, or the observation period. The risk difference was utilized for the analyses, and a random-effects model was applied. All analyses were conducted with a 95% confidence interval (95% CI). The calculated risk differences were derived from the combined data on restoration survival and failures obtained from each individual article. The presence of heterogeneity was assessed using the I statistic, and if present, the heterogeneity of the data in the articles was evaluated using the non-parametric chi-squared statistic (p < 0.05).
RESULTS
A total of 12 eligible studies were selected, which included 946 restorations evaluated over a minimum observation period of 1 year and a maximum observation period of 7 years. Results of the meta-analysis indicated that intracoronal indirect resin composite restorations have an 18% higher rate of failure when compared to intracoronal gold restorations over 5-7 years of clinical service (risk difference = - 0.18 [95% CI: - 0.27, - 0.09]; p = .0002; I = 0%). The meta-analysis examining the disparity in survival rates between intracoronal gold and leucite restorations could not be carried out due to methodological differences in the studies.
CONCLUSIONS
According to the currently available evidence, medium-quality data indicates that lithium disilicate and indirect composite materials demonstrate comparable survival rates in short-term follow-up. Furthermore, intracoronal gold restorations showed significantly higher survival rates, making them a preferred option over intracoronal indirect resin-composite restorations. Besides that, the analysis revealed no statistically significant difference in survival rates between leucite and indirect composite restorations. The short observation period, limited number of eligible articles, and low sample size of the included studies were significant limitations.
CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE
Bearing in mind the limitations of the reviewed literature, this systematic review and meta-analysis help clinicians make evidence-based decisions on how to restore biomechanically compromised posterior teeth.
Topics: Dental Porcelain; Aluminum Silicates; Composite Resins; Gold
PubMed: 37597003
DOI: 10.1007/s00784-023-05050-x -
Clinical Oral Implants Research May 2019To evaluate whether zirconia implants demonstrate differences in hard and soft tissue integration compared to titanium implants in preclinical studies. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate whether zirconia implants demonstrate differences in hard and soft tissue integration compared to titanium implants in preclinical studies.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
In March 2017, electronic (MEDLINE, EMBASE) and hand search was performed to identify preclinical studies comparing zirconia and titanium implants. Primary outcomes were bone-to-implant contact (BIC) and removal torque out (RTQ), respectively, push-in (PI) measurements. Secondary outcomes included biologic width (BW) dimensions.
RESULTS
A total of 37 studies were included for data extraction after screening of 91 from 1,231 selected titles. Thirty-seven experimental studies using six different species were identified. The follow-up periods ranged between 0.4 and 56 weeks. For titanium, mean values of 59.1% (95% CI: 53.3 - 64.8), 102.6 Ncm (95% CI: 81.5 - 123.6), and 25.1 N (95% CI: 20.2 - 30.0) for BIC, RTQ, and PI were estimated, respectively. The mean values for zirconia were 55.9% (95% CI: 51.6 - 60.1), 71.5 Ncm (95% CI: 51.1 - 91.9), and 22.0 N (95% CI: 13.2 - 30.7) for corresponding parameters. Confounding factors such as animal species, implant material, loading protocol, and study or loading duration significantly influenced the outcomes. Similar qualitative soft tissue integration was reported for zirconia and titanium implants. However, faster maturation processes of epithelial and connective tissues around zirconia implants were assumed. Quantitatively, similar BW dimensions were evaluated for titanium (3.5 mm; 95% CI: 2.9 - 4.2) and zirconia (3.2 mm; 95% CI: 2.7 - 3.7), whereas the loading protocol significantly influenced the outcomes.
CONCLUSIONS
Zirconia and titanium implants demonstrate a similar soft and hard tissue integration capacity. However, titanium tended to show a faster initial osseointegration process compared to zirconia. Importantly, not only material characteristics but predominantly animal species and study protocols can significantly influence the outcomes.
Topics: Animals; Dental Implants; Dental Prosthesis Design; Osseointegration; Surface Properties; Titanium; Zirconium
PubMed: 30916812
DOI: 10.1111/clr.13425 -
Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) Dec 2021: Preliminary studies emphasize the similar performance of autogenous bone blocks (AUBBs) and allogeneic bone blocks (ALBBs) in pre-implant surgery; however, most of... (Review)
Review
: Preliminary studies emphasize the similar performance of autogenous bone blocks (AUBBs) and allogeneic bone blocks (ALBBs) in pre-implant surgery; however, most of these studies include limited subjects or hold a low level of evidence. The purpose of this review is to test the hypothesis of indifferent implant survival rates (ISRs) in AUBB and ALBB and determine the impact of various material-, surgery- and patient-related confounders and predictors. : The national library of medicine (MEDLINE), Excerpta Medica database (EMBASE) and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) were screened for studies reporting the ISRs of implants placed in AUBB and ALBB with ≥10 participants followed for ≥12 months from January 1995 to November 2021. The review was conducted in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. The risk of bias was assessed via several scoring tools, dependent on the study design. Means of sub-entities were presented as violin plots. : An electronic data search resulted in the identification of 9233 articles, of which 100 were included in the quantitative analysis. No significant difference ( 0.54) was found between the ISR of AUBB (96.23 ± 5.27%; range: 75% to 100%; 2195 subjects, 6861 implants) and that of ALBB (97.66 ± 2.68%; range: 90.1% to 100%; 1202 subjects, 3434 implants). The ISR in AUBB was increased in blocks from intraoral as compared to extraoral donor sites ( 0.0003), partially edentulous as compared to totally edentulous ( 0.0002), as well as in patients younger than 45 as compared to those older ( 0.044), cortical as compared to cortico-cancellous blocks ( 0.005) and in delayed implantations within three months as compared to immediate implantations ( 0.018). The ISR of ALBB was significantly increased in processed as compared to fresh-frozen ALBB ( 0.004), but also in horizontal as compared to vertical augmentations ( 0.009). : The present findings widely emphasize the feasibility of achieving similar ISRs with AUBB and ALBB applied for pre-implant bone grafting. ISRs were negatively affected in sub-entities linked to more extensive augmentation procedures such as bone donor site and dentition status. The inclusion and pooling of literature with a low level of evidence, the absence of randomized controlled clinical trials (RCTs) comparing AUBB and ALBB and the limited count of comparative studies with short follow-ups increases the risk of bias and complicates data interpretation. Consequently, further long-term comparative studies are needed.
Topics: Bone Transplantation; Dental Implants; Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation; Humans; Mouth, Edentulous; Survival Rate; United States
PubMed: 34946333
DOI: 10.3390/medicina57121388 -
European Journal of Oral Implantology 2018A large variety of dental materials are available for the production of implant-supported fixed restorations. Materials with different properties are likely to behave...
AIM
A large variety of dental materials are available for the production of implant-supported fixed restorations. Materials with different properties are likely to behave differently during clinical function, which may result in different prevalence and types of complications. The aim of the present review was to summarise, analyse and discuss the prevalence and types of complications or failures related to dental materials in implant-supported restorations.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
A strategy was set up using the PICO format and the search was performed using the PubMed database, including a hand search of reference lists. Two independent reviewers selected papers based on a set of criteria. The number of events of complications was summarised.
RESULTS
The initial search produced 2764 titles. After application of criteria, 47 publications were selected for analysis. Seventeen studies reported on 1447 single crowns and 30 studies reported on 2190 fixed dental prostheses. The most common complications were fracture or chipping of the veneer material, loss of retention and lost access hole fillings. Due to the heterogeneity of studies, and large variation in number of restorations per material group, no conclusive correlation between type of material and type of technical complication and/or failure could be established.
CONCLUSIONS
The review did not succeed in providing convincing evidence to answer the question concerning a possible relationship between restoration materials and prevalence of technical complications in implant-supported restorations.
Topics: Crowns; Dental Implants; Dental Materials; Dental Prosthesis Design; Dental Prosthesis, Implant-Supported; Dental Restoration Failure; Denture, Partial, Fixed; Humans
PubMed: 30109306
DOI: No ID Found -
Journal of Prosthodontics : Official... Jan 2016To evaluate the current scientific evidence on patient recall and maintenance of dental restorations on natural teeth, standardize patient care regimens, and improve... (Review)
Review
PURPOSE
To evaluate the current scientific evidence on patient recall and maintenance of dental restorations on natural teeth, standardize patient care regimens, and improve maintenance of oral health. An additional purpose was to examine areas of deficiency in the current scientific literature and provide recommendations for future studies.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
An electronic search for articles in the English language literature from the past 15 years was performed independently by multiple investigators using a systematic search process. After application of predetermined inclusion and exclusion criteria, the final list of articles was reviewed in depth to meet the objectives of this review.
RESULTS
The initial electronic search resulted in 2161 titles. The systematic application of inclusion and exclusion criteria resulted in 12 articles that met the objectives of the study. An additional 4 articles were added through a supplemental search process for a total of 16 studies. Out of these, 9 were randomized controlled clinical trials and 7 were observational studies. The majority of the studies (14 out of 16) were conducted in the past 5 years, and most of the studies were conducted in Europe (10). Results from the qualitative data, on a combined 3569 patients, indicated that outcome improvements in recall and maintenance regimen were related to (1) patient/treatment characteristics (adherence to recall appointments, type of restoration and type of restorative material); (2) agent (chlorhexidine, fluoride, triclosan); and (3) professional interventions (repeated oral hygiene instruction, regular oral hygiene intervention).
CONCLUSIONS
There is minimal evidence related to recall regimens in patients with removable and fixed tooth-borne restorations; however, there is considerable evidence indicating that patients with tooth-borne removable and fixed restorations require lifelong dental professional maintenance to provide repeated oral hygiene instruction and regular oral hygiene intervention customized to each patient's treatment. Current evidence also indicates that use of specific oral topical agents like chlorhexidine, fluoride, and triclosan can aid in reducing risk for gingival inflammation, dental caries, and candidiasis. Therefore, these agents may aid in improvement of professional and at-home maintenance of various tooth-borne dental restorations. Furthermore, due to the heterogeneity of patient populations, restorations, and treatment needs, the evidence compels forethought of creating clinical practice guidelines for recall and maintenance of patients with tooth-borne dental restorations.
Topics: Dental Care; Dental Caries; Dental Implants; Europe; Humans
PubMed: 26711218
DOI: 10.1111/jopr.12417