-
Dental Materials : Official Publication... Jan 2023This review study provides an overview of factors that influence the longevity of all types of direct resin composite restorations. (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVES
This review study provides an overview of factors that influence the longevity of all types of direct resin composite restorations.
METHODS
A systematic search was performed in PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science databases for articles reporting data from primary longitudinal clinical studies on composite longevity published 2011-2021. Prospective or retrospective studies with restorations in permanent dentition, with follow-up periods of at least 5 years were included.
RESULTS
In total, 33 articles were included with different study designs, practice settings, datasets, countries of origin, and sample sizes. Annual failure rates of restorations ranged from 0.08% to 6.3%. Survival rates varied between 23% and 97.7%, success rates varied between 43.4% and 98.7%. Secondary caries, fractures, and esthetic compromise were main reasons for failures. Risk factors for reduced restoration durability included patient-level factors (e.g., caries risk, parafunctional habits, number of check-ups per year, socioeconomic status), dentist factors (different operators, operator's experience), and tooth/restoration factors (endodontic treatment, type of tooth, number of restored surfaces). Patient gender and the composite used generally did not influence durability.
SIGNIFICANCE
A number of risk factors are involved in the longevity of composite restorations. Differences between composites play a minor role in durability, assuming that materials and techniques are properly applied by dentists. Patient factors play a major role in longevity. The decision-making process implemented by dentists relative to the diagnosis of aging or failed restorations may also affect the longevity of restorations. Clinicians should treat patients comprehensively and promote a healthy lifestyle to ensure longevity.
Topics: Humans; Composite Resins; Dental Caries; Dental Restoration Failure; Dental Restoration, Permanent
PubMed: 36494241
DOI: 10.1016/j.dental.2022.11.009 -
Dental Materials : Official Publication... Dec 2021The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to compare the bond strength between eroded and sound permanent enamel and dentin and to assess whether bonding... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to compare the bond strength between eroded and sound permanent enamel and dentin and to assess whether bonding performance (immediate and after aging) differs between etch&rinse and self-etch adhesives and can be improved by surface pretreatment prior to bonding.
METHODS
Electronic databases (PubMed, Scopus, Embase, Web of Science, CENTRAL, LILACS, BBO) were searched by two reviewers. Random-effect meta-analyses were performed to compare bond strength to sound and eroded dental hard tissues without and with surface pretreatment prior to bonding, respectively. The effect of adhesive mode (etch&rinse vs. self-etch) and aging (immediate vs. aged) was compared using subgroup analyses. Statistical heterogeneity was assessed using Cochran's Q and I-statistic. Funnel plots and Egger's regression intercept tests were used to evaluate publication bias. Quality and risk of bias of included studies were also assessed.
RESULTS
Fourty-seven studies (45 in vitro, 2 in situ) were included in the systematic review and meta-analyses. Erosion impairs bond strength to dentin (p < 0.001; mean difference: -10.2 MPa [95%CI: -11.9 to -8.6 MPa]), but not to enamel (p = 0.260). Surface pretreatment measures removing or stabilizing the collagenous matrix can improve dentin bond strength (maximum mean difference: +12.4 MPa). Etch&rinse and self-etch adhesives did not perform significantly different on eroded enamel (p = 0.208) and dentin (p = 0.353). The majority of studies (32 of 47) presented a medium risk of bias.
SIGNIFICANCE
Data from in vitro and in situ studies showed that erosion impairs dentin bonding of etch&rinse and self-etch adhesives and makes surface pretreatment prior to bonding of composite restorations necessary.
Topics: Dental Bonding; Dental Cements; Dental Enamel; Dentin; Dentin-Bonding Agents; Materials Testing; Resin Cements
PubMed: 34593245
DOI: 10.1016/j.dental.2021.09.014 -
The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry Mar 2020The restoration of extensively damaged endodontically treated teeth remains a challenge. The use of post-retained restorations has been questioned because of potential...
STATEMENT OF PROBLEM
The restoration of extensively damaged endodontically treated teeth remains a challenge. The use of post-retained restorations has been questioned because of potential tooth weakening.
PURPOSE
The purpose of this systematic review was to determine whether endocrowns are a reliable alternative to post-retained restorations for extensively damaged endodontically treated teeth and to determine which preparation design is most appropriate and which materials are best adapted for fabricating endocrowns.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
The literature that was analyzed covered endocrowns from 1995 to June 2018. A search was conducted for in vitro and clinical studies in English in 3 research databases (PubMed, Cochrane, and Scopus), and this was complemented by a manual search in the bibliographies of the studies found. Case reports were excluded.
RESULTS
A total of 41 publications consisting of 8 clinical studies and 33 in vitro studies were included in this systematic review. Several analysis parameters were identified: for the clinical studies, survival rate, failure modes, and clinical criteria; for the in vitro studies, fracture resistance, stress distribution, preparation criteria, and materials used.
CONCLUSIONS
Endocrowns are a reliable alternative to post-retained restorations for molars and seem promising for premolars. A certain preparation design and a rigorous adhesion protocol must be respected. Among the available materials, lithium disilicate glass-ceramic and nanofilled composite resin stand out.
Topics: Composite Resins; Crowns; Dental Porcelain; Dental Restoration Failure; Dental Stress Analysis; Humans; Materials Testing; Tooth, Nonvital
PubMed: 31353111
DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2019.04.009 -
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 Dentistry Sep 2015The aim of the present review was to evaluate by means of a systematic review and meta-analysis the hypothesis of no difference in failure rates between amalgam and... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVES
The aim of the present review was to evaluate by means of a systematic review and meta-analysis the hypothesis of no difference in failure rates between amalgam and composite resin posterior restorations.
DATA
Randomized controlled trials, controlled clinical trials and prospective and retrospective cohort studies were included in this review. The eligibility criteria included clinical trials in humans with at least 12 months of follow-up comparing the failures rates between occlusal and occlusoproximal amalgam and composite resin restorations. Clinical questions were formulated and organized according to the PICOS strategy.
SOURCE
An electronic search without restriction on the dates or languages was performed in PubMed/MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Web of Science up until March 2015.
STUDY SELECTION
The initial search resulted in 938 articles from PubMed/MEDLINE, 89 titles from the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and 172 from the Web of Science. After an initial assessment and careful reading, 8 studies published between 1992 and 2013 were included in this review. According to the risk of bias evaluation, all studies were classified as high quality.
CONCLUSIONS
The results of this review suggest that composite resin restorations in posterior teeth still have less longevity and a higher number of secondary caries when compared to amalgam restorations. In relation to fractures, there was no statistically significant difference between the two restorative materials regarding the time of follow-up.
CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE
There is currently a worldwide trend towards replacing amalgam restorations with mercury-free materials, which are adhesive and promote aesthetics. It is important to perform an updated periodic review to synthesize the clinical performance of restorations in the long-term.
Topics: Acrylic Resins; Composite Resins; Dental Amalgam; Dental Restoration Failure; Humans; Polyurethanes
PubMed: 26116767
DOI: 10.1016/j.jdent.2015.06.005 -
The Science of the Total Environment Feb 2024Microplastics are plastic particles, films, and fibers with a diameter of < 5 mm. Given their long-standing existence in the environment and terrible increase in annual... (Review)
Review
Microplastics are plastic particles, films, and fibers with a diameter of < 5 mm. Given their long-standing existence in the environment and terrible increase in annual emissions, concerns were raised about the potential health risk of microplastics on human beings. In particular, the increased consumption of masks during the COVID-19 pandemic has dramatically increased human contact with microplastics. To date, the emergence of microplastics in the human body, such as feces, blood, placenta, lower airway, and lungs, has been reported. Related toxicological investigations of microplastics were gradually increased. To comprehensively illuminate the interplay of microplastic exposure and human health, we systematically reviewed the updated toxicological data of microplastics and summarized their mode of action, adverse effects, and toxic mechanisms. The emerging critical issues in the current toxicological investigations were proposed and discussed. Our work would facilitate a better understanding of MPs-induced health hazards for toxicological evaluation and provide helpful information for regulatory decisions.
Topics: Humans; Microplastics; Pandemics
PubMed: 38043812
DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2023.168946 -
The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry Sep 2023High-level evidence concerning the restoration of endodontically treated posterior teeth by means of direct composite resin or indirect restorations is lacking. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
STATEMENT OF PROBLEM
High-level evidence concerning the restoration of endodontically treated posterior teeth by means of direct composite resin or indirect restorations is lacking.
PURPOSE
The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to analyze the current literature on the direct and indirect restoration of endodontically treated posterior teeth.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
Databases MEDLINE, CENTRAL, and EMBASE were screened. Risk of bias was assessed by using the ROB2 tool for RCTs and the ROBINS-I tool for prospective and retrospective clinical studies. Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and prospective and retrospective studies comparing direct composite resin and indirect restorations on endodontically treated posterior teeth were included. Outcomes were tooth and restoration survival. A meta-analysis was conducted for tooth retention and restorative success.
RESULTS
Twenty-two studies were included (2 RCTs, 3 prospective, and 17 retrospective). Over the short term (2.5 to 3 years), low-quality evidence suggested no difference in tooth survival. For the prospective and retrospective clinical trials, the overall risk of bias was serious to critical from the risk of confounding because of a difference in restorative indication: Direct restorations were fabricated when one marginal ridge remained or when tooth prognosis was unfavorable. For short-term restorative success, low-quality evidence suggested no difference between the direct and indirect restorations.
CONCLUSIONS
For the short term (2.5 to 3 years), low-quality evidence suggests no difference in tooth survival or restoration quality. To assess the influence of the type of restoration on the survival and restorative success of endodontically treated posterior teeth, clinical trials that control for the amount of coronal tooth tissue and other baseline characteristics are needed.
Topics: Humans; Composite Resins; Dental Restoration, Permanent; Molar; Retrospective Studies; Dental Restoration Failure; Tooth, Nonvital
PubMed: 34980474
DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2021.11.009 -
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 Esthetic and Restorative... Jan 2022Several systematic literature reviews have assessed the scientific evidence on resin bonding protocols to conventional 3 mol% ytrria-stabilized zirconia (3Y-TZP)... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVES
Several systematic literature reviews have assessed the scientific evidence on resin bonding protocols to conventional 3 mol% ytrria-stabilized zirconia (3Y-TZP) ceramics. It has been widely discussed, however, that the differing composition and physical properties of new high-translucent zirconia generations (4Y-TZP and 5Y-TZP) may require alternative bonding materials and procedures. This paper reviewed in vitro studies on the success and durability of bonding protocols to high-translucent zirconia.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
A systematic search of PubMed and Cochrane Library for in vitro studies on bonding to new zirconia generations published until November 2020 was conducted and complemented by a manual search. Studies selected for review fulfilled the applied inclusion and exclusion criteria. The quality of the included studies was assessed with the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomized trials.
RESULTS
Of 629 screened articles, 18 were included in this review. They investigated different surface pretreatment methods, primers, resin cements, aging procedures, and bond strength test protocols. The limited number of the identified studies and the heterogeneity of the extracted data did not allow to conduct a meta-analysis.
CONCLUSIONS
The available evidence suggests that resin bonding protocols successfully applied to conventional zirconia are also the most successful for high-translucent zirconia. Airborne particle abrasion and special phosphate monomer-containing primers or composite resin cements provide long-term durable resin bonds.
CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE
Durable bonds can be established between high-translucent zirconia and resin cements. The bonding materials and procedures applied do not compromise their physical properties.
Topics: Ceramics; Dental Bonding; Dental Stress Analysis; Materials Testing; Resin Cements; Surface Properties; Zirconium
PubMed: 35072329
DOI: 10.1111/jerd.12876 -
International Dental Journal Jun 2022The aim of this review was to evaluate the most used suture materials with regards to their inflammatory response, their bacterial adhesion, and their physical... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
The aim of this review was to evaluate the most used suture materials with regards to their inflammatory response, their bacterial adhesion, and their physical properties when used to close oral wounds.
METHODS
Four databases (PubMed, Scopus, Dentistry & Oral Sciences, and OVID) were searched to retrieve relevant studies from January 1, 2000, to January 31, 2020.
RESULTS
Out of the 269 articles, only 13 studies were selected as they were relevant and met the systematic review's protocol. These studies showed that almost all suture materials studies (catgut, polyglycolic acid [PGA] sutures, nylon, expanded polytetrafluoroethylene, and silk sutures) caused bacterial adherence and tissue reaction. In nylon and chromic catgut, the number of bacteria accumulated was lowest. Silk and nylon were found to be more impacted than catgut and PGA in terms of physical characteristics such as tensile strength. PGA, on the other hand, was said to be the most susceptible to knot unwinding.
CONCLUSIONS
Following an oral surgical operation, all sutures revealed varied degrees of irritation and microbial accumulation. Nonresorbable monofilament synthetic sutures, however, exhibited less tissue response and less microbial accumulation.
Topics: Humans; Nylons; Oral Surgical Procedures; Polyglycolic Acid; Sutures
PubMed: 35305815
DOI: 10.1016/j.identj.2022.02.005