-
Journal of Oral Rehabilitation Nov 2017To answer a clinical research question: 'is there any association between features of dental occlusion and temporomandibular disorders (TMD)?' A systematic literature... (Review)
Review
To answer a clinical research question: 'is there any association between features of dental occlusion and temporomandibular disorders (TMD)?' A systematic literature review was performed. Inclusion was based on: (i) the type of study, viz., clinical studies on adults assessing the association between TMD (e.g., signs, symptoms, specific diagnoses) and features of dental occlusion by means of single or multiple variable analysis, and (ii) their internal validity, viz., use of clinical assessment approaches to TMD diagnosis. The search accounted for 25 papers included in the review, 10 of which with multiple variable analysis. Quality assessment showed some possible shortcomings, mainly related with the unspecified representativeness of study populations. Seventeen (N = 17) articles compared TMD patients with non-TMD individuals, whilst eight papers compared the features of dental occlusion in individuals with TMD signs/symptoms and healthy subjects in non-patient populations. Findings are quite consistent towards a lack of clinically relevant association between TMD and dental occlusion. Only two (i.e., centric relation [CR]-maximum intercuspation [MI] slide and mediotrusive interferences) of the almost forty occlusion features evaluated in the various studies were associated with TMD in the majority (e.g., at least 50%) of single variable analyses in patient populations. Only mediotrusive interferences are associated with TMD in the majority of multiple variable analyses. Such association does not imply a causal relationship and may even have opposite implications than commonly believed (i.e., interferences being the result, and not the cause, of TMD). Findings support the absence of a disease-specific association. Based on that, there seems to lack ground to further hypothesise a role for dental occlusion in the pathophysiology of TMD. Clinicians are encouraged to abandon the old gnathological paradigm in TMD practice.
Topics: Dental Occlusion; Dental Research; Humans; Malocclusion; Risk Factors; Temporomandibular Joint Disorders
PubMed: 28600812
DOI: 10.1111/joor.12531 -
The Lancet. Healthy Longevity Aug 2021Poor oral health is common among older adults and can impair essential activities of daily living and contribute to frailty. We did a systematic review of studies on the... (Review)
Review
Poor oral health is common among older adults and can impair essential activities of daily living and contribute to frailty. We did a systematic review of studies on the relationship between oral health factors and frailty among older adults (>60 years), consulting six different electronic databases for studies published from database inception to March 20, 2021. In total, 39 articles met the eligibility requirements, including 12 different indicators of poor oral health related to frailty, which we grouped in four different categories: oral health status deterioration; deterioration of oral motor skills; chewing, swallowing, and saliva disorders; and oral pain. Factors of oral health status deterioration (52%), in particular few remaining teeth (29%), were most frequently associated with frailty. Reduced oral motor skills (27%), especially masticatory function (9%), oral diadochokinesis (5%), occlusal force (7%), and chewing, swallowing, and saliva disorders (20%), especially chewing difficulties [11%]), were less frequent but were similarly considered to be associated with frailty. Our findings could help to assess the contribution of each oral health item to a possible operational definition of this novel frailty phenotype, defined as an age-related gradual loss of oral function together with a decline in cognitive and physical functions.
Topics: Activities of Daily Living; Aged; Bite Force; Frail Elderly; Frailty; Humans; Oral Health
PubMed: 36098000
DOI: 10.1016/S2666-7568(21)00143-4 -
Dental Press Journal of Orthodontics 2018Considering that the available studies on prevalence of malocclusions are local or national-based, this study aimed to pool data to determine the distribution of...
OBJECTIVE
Considering that the available studies on prevalence of malocclusions are local or national-based, this study aimed to pool data to determine the distribution of malocclusion traits worldwide in mixed and permanent dentitions.
METHODS
An electronic search was conducted using PubMed, Embase and Google Scholar search engines, to retrieve data on malocclusion prevalence for both mixed and permanent dentitions, up to December 2016.
RESULTS
Out of 2,977 retrieved studies, 53 were included. In permanent dentition, the global distributions of Class I, Class II, and Class III malocclusion were 74.7% [31 - 97%], 19.56% [2 - 63%] and 5.93% [1 - 20%], respectively. In mixed dentition, the distributions of these malocclusions were 73% [40 - 96%], 23% [2 - 58%] and 4% [0.7 - 13%]. Regarding vertical malocclusions, the observed deep overbite and open bite were 21.98% and 4.93%, respectively. Posterior crossbite affected 9.39% of the sample. Africans showed the highest prevalence of Class I and open bite in permanent dentition (89% and 8%, respectively), and in mixed dentition (93% and 10%, respectively), while Caucasians showed the highest prevalence of Class II in permanent dentition (23%) and mixed dentition (26%). Class III malocclusion in mixed dentition was highly prevalent among Mongoloids.
CONCLUSION
Worldwide, in mixed and permanent dentitions, Angle Class I malocclusion is more prevalent than Class II, specifically among Africans; the least prevalent was Class III, although higher among Mongoloids in mixed dentition. In vertical dimension, open bite was highest among Mongoloids in mixed dentition. Posterior crossbite was more prevalent in permanent dentition in Europe.
Topics: Databases, Factual; Dental Occlusion, Traumatic; Dentition, Mixed; Dentition, Permanent; Female; Geography; Global Health; Humans; Male; Malocclusion; Malocclusion, Angle Class I; Malocclusion, Angle Class II; Malocclusion, Angle Class III; Open Bite; Population; Prevalence; Race Factors
PubMed: 30672991
DOI: 10.1590/2177-6709.23.6.40.e1-10.onl -
Polymers Aug 2020The objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to determine the clinical effectiveness of bulk-fill and conventional resin in composite restorations. A... (Review)
Review
The objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to determine the clinical effectiveness of bulk-fill and conventional resin in composite restorations. A bibliographic search was carried out until May 2020, in the biomedical databases Pubmed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, Scopus, CENTRAL and Web of Science. The study selection criteria were: randomized clinical trials, in English, with no time limit, with a follow-up greater than or equal to 6 months and that reported the clinical effects (absence of fractures, absence of discoloration or marginal staining, adequate adaptation marginal, absence of post-operative sensitivity, absence of secondary caries, adequate color stability and translucency, proper surface texture, proper anatomical form, adequate tooth integrity without wear, adequate restoration integrity, proper occlusion, absence of inflammation and adequate point of contact) of restorations made with conventional and bulk resins. The risk of bias of the study was analyzed using the Cochrane Manual of Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Sixteen articles were eligible and included in the study. The results indicated that there is no difference between restorations with conventional and bulk resins for the type of restoration, type of tooth restored and restoration technique used. However, further properly designed clinical studies are required in order to reach a better conclusion.
PubMed: 32785019
DOI: 10.3390/polym12081786 -
Journal of Prosthodontic Research Jan 2022Dental implant therapy is a common clinical treatment for missing teeth. However, the esthetic result is not as satisfactory as expected in some cases, especially in the...
PURPOSE
Dental implant therapy is a common clinical treatment for missing teeth. However, the esthetic result is not as satisfactory as expected in some cases, especially in the anterior maxillary area. Poor esthetic results are caused by inadequate preparation of the hard and soft tissues in this area before treatment. The socket shield technique may be an alternative for a desirable esthetic outcome in dental implant treatments.
STUDY SELECTION
In the present systematic review, PubMed-Medline, Google Scholar, and ScienceDirect were searched for clinical studies published from January 2000 to December 2018.
RESULTS
Twenty studies were included, comprising one randomized controlled trial, two cohort studies, 14 clinical human case reports, and three retrospective case series. In total, 288 patients treated with the socket shield technique with immediate implant placement and follow-up between 3-60 months after placement were included. A quality assessment showed that 12 of the 20 included studies were of good quality. Twenty-six of the 274 (9.5%) cases developed complications or adverse effects related to the socket shield technique. Most studies reported implant survival without the complications (90.5%); most of the cases that were followed up for more than 12 months after implant placement achieved a good esthetic appearance. The failure rate was low without the complications, although there were some failures due to failed implant osseointegration, socket shield mobility and infection, socket shield exposure, socket shield migration, and apical root resorption.
CONCLUSIONS
The socket shield technique can be used in dental implant treatment, but it remains difficult to predict the long-term success of this technique until high-quality evidence becomes available.
Topics: Dental Implantation, Endosseous; Dental Implants; Dental Implants, Single-Tooth; Esthetics, Dental; Humans; Immediate Dental Implant Loading; Retrospective Studies; Tooth Extraction; Tooth Socket; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 33692284
DOI: 10.2186/jpr.JPR_D_20_00054 -
Implant Dentistry Dec 2016Occlusal overload may cause implant biomechanical failures, marginal bone loss, or even complete loss of osseointegration. Thus, it is important for clinicians to... (Review)
Review
PURPOSE
Occlusal overload may cause implant biomechanical failures, marginal bone loss, or even complete loss of osseointegration. Thus, it is important for clinicians to understand the role of occlusion in implant long-term stability. This systematic review updates the understanding of occlusion on dental implants, the impact on the surrounding peri-implant tissues, and the effects of occlusal overload on implants. Additionally, recommendations of occlusal scheme for implant prostheses and designs were formulated.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Two reviewers completed a literature search using the PubMed database and a manual search of relevant journals. Relevant articles from January 1950 to September 20, 2015 published in the English language were considered.
RESULTS
Recommendations for implant occlusion are lacking in the literature. Despite this, implant occlusion should be carefully addressed.
CONCLUSION
Recommendations for occlusal schemes for single implants or fixed partial denture supported by implants include a mutually protected occlusion with anterior guidance and evenly distributed contacts with wide freedom in centric relation. Suggestions to reduce occlusal overload include reducing cantilevers, increasing the number of implants, increasing contact points, monitoring for parafunctional habits, narrowing the occlusal table, decreasing cuspal inclines, and using progressive loading in patients with poor bone quality. Protecting the implant and surrounding peri-implant bone requires an understanding of how occlusion plays a role in influencing long-term implant stability.
Topics: Bite Force; Dental Implantation; Dental Implants; Dental Occlusion; Dental Prosthesis Retention; Humans
PubMed: 27749518
DOI: 10.1097/ID.0000000000000488 -
European Journal of Dentistry Jul 2023This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of conventional occlusal analysis in contrast with digital occlusal analysis in natural dentition. Occlusal analysis...
This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of conventional occlusal analysis in contrast with digital occlusal analysis in natural dentition. Occlusal analysis allows the identification of normal and abnormal occlusal contact points that alter the craniomandibular cervical system. We searched for articles with keywords [[dental occlusion]], [[natural dentition]], [[occlusal adjustment]], [[Immediate Complete Anterior Guidance Development]] [[mastication]], [[bite force]], [[premature contact]], [[occlusal balance]] [[articulating paper]]], [[spray]], [[Occlusal contacts]], and [[bite strength]]. They were considered observational , odds ratio and case control studies. We found 189 items. After evaluating the abstracts and full texts of the articles, 10 papers met the inclusion criteria. It was found that occlusal analysis allows the identification of the relationship between poor occlusion and the sensitivity of the teeth due to occlusal trauma, which is also related to temporomandibular joint pain in dynamic occlusion. The contacts of greater strength were observed in nonfunctional cusps, 48%, without ruling out the functional cusps, 24%. Despite being the universal method of occlusal control to date, the use of joint paper, remains subjective compared to the digital occlusal control device. Posture is considered directly related to occlusal trauma and temporomandibular disorders; without proper occlusal analysis, a clear diagnosis of the patient's joint condition cannot be obtained. Digital occlusal analysis is more objective than traditional occlusal analysis.
PubMed: 36252609
DOI: 10.1055/s-0042-1755626 -
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 -
Clinical Oral Investigations Mar 2022To investigate the effects of dental/skeletal malocclusion and orthodontic treatment on four main objective parameters of chewing and jaw function (maximum occlusal bite... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVE
To investigate the effects of dental/skeletal malocclusion and orthodontic treatment on four main objective parameters of chewing and jaw function (maximum occlusal bite force [MOBF], masticatory muscle electromyography [EMG], jaw kinematics, and chewing efficiency/performance) in healthy children.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Systematic searches were conducted in MEDLINE (OVID), Embase, and the Web of Science Core Collection. Studies that examined the four parameters in healthy children with malocclusions were included. The quality of studies and overall evidence were assessed using the Joanna Briggs Institute and GRADE tools, respectively.
RESULTS
The searches identified 8192 studies; 57 were finally included. The quality of included studies was high in nine studies, moderate in twenty-three studies, and low in twenty-five studies. During the primary dentition, children with malocclusions showed similar MOBF and lower chewing efficiency compared to control subjects. During mixed/permanent dentition, children with malocclusion showed lower MOBF and EMG activity and chewing efficiency compared to control subjects. The jaw kinematics of children with unilateral posterior crossbite showed a larger jaw opening angle and a higher frequency of reverse chewing cycles compared to crossbite-free children. There was a low to moderate level of evidence on the effects of orthodontic treatment in restoring normal jaw function.
CONCLUSIONS
Based on the limitations of the studies included, it is not entirely possible to either support or deny the influence of dental/skeletal malocclusion traits on MOBF, EMG, jaw kinematics, and masticatory performance in healthy children. Furthermore, well-designed longitudinal studies may be needed to determine whether orthodontic treatments can improve chewing function in general.
CLINICAL RELEVANCE
Comprehensive orthodontic treatment, which includes evaluation and restoration of function, may or may not mitigate the effects of malocclusion and restore normal chewing function.
Topics: Bite Force; Child; Electromyography; Humans; Malocclusion; Masseter Muscle; Mastication; Masticatory Muscles
PubMed: 34985577
DOI: 10.1007/s00784-021-04356-y -
Journal of Periodontology Jun 2016Multiple variables have been shown to affect early marginal bone loss (MBL). Among them, the location of the microgap with respect to the alveolar bone crest, occlusion,... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Multiple variables have been shown to affect early marginal bone loss (MBL). Among them, the location of the microgap with respect to the alveolar bone crest, occlusion, and use of a polished collar have traditionally been investigated as major contributory factors for this early remodeling. Recently, soft tissue thickness has also been investigated as a possible factor influencing this phenomenon. Hence, this study aims to further evaluate the influence of soft tissue thickness on early MBL around dental implants.
METHODS
Electronic and manual literature searches were performed by two independent reviewers in several databases, including Medline, EMBASE, and Cochrane Oral Health Group Trials Register, for articles up to May 2015 reporting soft tissue thickness at time of implant placement and MBL with ≥12-month follow-up. In addition, random effects meta-analyses of selected studies were applied to analyze the weighted mean difference (WMD) of MBL between groups of thick and thin peri-implant soft tissue. Metaregression was conducted to investigate any potential influences of confounding factors, i.e., platform switching design, cement-/screw-retained restoration, and flapped/flapless surgical techniques.
RESULTS
Eight articles were included in the systematic review, and five were included in the quantitative synthesis and meta-analyzed to examine the influence of tissue thickness on early MBL. Meta-analysis for the comparison of MBL among selected studies showed a WMD of -0.80 mm (95% confidence interval -1.18 to -0.42 mm) (P <0.0001), favoring the thick tissue group. Metaregression of the selected studies failed to demonstrate an association among MBL and confounding factors.
CONCLUSION
The current study demonstrates that implants placed with an initially thicker peri-implant soft tissue have less radiographic MBL in the short term.
Topics: Alveolar Bone Loss; Alveolar Process; Bone Diseases, Metabolic; Dental Implantation, Endosseous; Dental Implants; Humans; Surgical Flaps
PubMed: 26777766
DOI: 10.1902/jop.2016.150571