-
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 -
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 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Dec 2017Fixed prosthodontic treatment (crowns, fixed dental prostheses (FDPs), complete arch prostheses) involves the use of several different materials to replace missing tooth... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Fixed prosthodontic treatment (crowns, fixed dental prostheses (FDPs), complete arch prostheses) involves the use of several different materials to replace missing tooth structure. Traditionally full metal or metal frameworks veneered with ceramic (metal-ceramic (MC)) have been used. In recent years several different metal-free systems have become available to clinicians and patients. In general, metal-free restorations should allow practitioners to better reproduce natural tooth colour, avoiding shortcomings of MC restorations. The comparative in service clinical performance of fixed prosthodontic treatments of different materials is unclear.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of metal-free materials for prosthodontic restorations compared to metal-ceramic or other conventional all-metal materials.
SEARCH METHODS
Cochrane Oral Health's Information Specialist searched the following databases: Cochrane Oral Health's Trials Register (searched 3 May 2017), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2017, Issue 4) in the Cochrane Library (searched 3 May 2017), MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to 3 May 2017), and Embase Ovid (1980 to 3 May 2017). The US National Institutes of Health Trials Registry (ClinicalTrials.gov) and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform were searched for ongoing trials (searched 3 May 2017). No restrictions were placed on the language or date of publication when searching the electronic databases.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in which the clinical performance of metal-free fixed prosthodontic restorations was compared with metal-ceramic (MC) or other conventional restorations in adult patients requiring prosthodontic treatment. RCTs in which the clinical performance of different kinds of metal-free systems were compared among themselves were also considered.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Screening of eligible studies, assessment of the methodological quality of the trials and data extraction were conducted independently and in duplicate. Trial authors were contacted for missing information. Available results for the outcomes of interest of the systematic review of the studies included were tabulated as they could not be included in a formal meta-analysis.
MAIN RESULTS
Nine trials involving a total of 448 participants were included. We judged two trials to be at unclear risk of bias and seven to be at high risk of bias. The majority of items of risk of bias were evaluated to be at unclear or high risk level in more than 50% of the included trials. Each trial except two was addressing a different type of intervention. All evidence was rated as being of very low quality due to problems with risk of bias and imprecision of results, the latter being due to very small sample sizes, low event rates, 95% confidence intervals including the possibility of benefit for both the test and control groups, or combinations of these problems. This means that we are very uncertain about all of the results presented in this review.One trial compared metal-free single crowns (full contour zirconia) to cast gold single crowns in 224 participants and found insufficient evidence of a difference in failure rate after one year, but after five years there was some evidence of a benefit for the gold crowns. There was insufficient evidence of a difference for crown complications at either time of assessment.One trial compared three-unit metal-free FDPs (lithium disilicate) to three-unit metal-ceramic FDPs in 37 participants. There was insufficient evidence of a difference in bridge failure at one and six years, but some evidence of a benefit for the lithium disilicate group in terms of bridge complications at six years. One trial compared zirconia-ceramic FDPs to metal-ceramic FDPs in 34 participants but found insufficient evidence of a difference in bridge failures (i.e. no failures in either treatment group), bridge complications or patients' aesthetic evaluation at any time of assessment up to three years.One trial compared metal-free cantilevered FDPs to metal-ceramic cantilevered FDPs in 21 participants. There was insufficient evidence of a difference for any primary outcome: bridge failures (i.e. no failures in either treatment group), bridge complications, or patients' aesthetic evaluation at any time of assessment up to three years.One trial compared metal-free implant-supported screw retained single crowns (zirconia veneered with feldspathic ceramic) to metal-ceramic implant-supported screw-retained single crowns in 20 participants. There was insufficient evidence of a difference for any primary outcome: crown failures (i.e. no failures in either treatment group), crown complications, or satisfaction/aesthetic evaluation at any time of assessment up to two years.Two trials compared metal-free implant abutments (zirconia) to metal implant abutments both supporting single crowns in 50 participants. There was insufficient evidence of a difference in abutment failure at one year.One trial compared metal-free implant-supported FDPs made of two different types of zirconia ceramic in 18 participants. There was insufficient evidence of a difference in failures at any time of assessment up to 10 years (i.e. no failures in either treatment group). There was some evidence of a benefit for the zirconia-toughened alumina group in terms of complications (chipping).One trial compared metal-free tooth-supported FDPs made with two different veneering techniques (pressed versus layered) in 40 participants. There was insufficient evidence of a difference for failures (i.e. no failures in either treatment group) or complications at any time of assessment up to three years.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is insufficient evidence to support or refute the effectiveness of metal-free materials for fixed prosthodontic treatment over metal-ceramic or other type of standard restorations. The overall quality of existing evidence was very low, therefore great caution should be exercised when generalising the results of the included trials. Until more evidence becomes available clinicians should continue to base decisions on which material to use for fixed prosthodontic treatment on their own clinical experience, whilst taking into consideration the individual circumstances and preferences of their patients. There is urgent need of properly designed RCTs.
Topics: Crowns; Dental Alloys; Dental Materials; Dental Restoration, Permanent; Humans; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Zirconium
PubMed: 29261853
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD009606.pub2 -
Clinical Oral Implants Research Oct 2018To systematically review the evidence for the clinical outcome of fixed implant prostheses treated with different combinations of implant placement and loading protocols...
OBJECTIVES
To systematically review the evidence for the clinical outcome of fixed implant prostheses treated with different combinations of implant placement and loading protocols in partially edentulous patients.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
An electronic search was performed in Medline, Embase, and Central to identify studies investigating the outcome of implants subjected to immediate placement + immediate restoration/loading (Type 1A), immediate placement + early loading (Type 1B), immediate placement + conventional loading (Type 1C), early placement + immediate restoration/loading (Type 2-3A), early placement + early loading (Type 2-3B), early placement + conventional loading (Type 2-3C), late placement + immediate restoration/loading (Type 4A), late placement + early loading (Type 4B), late placement + conventional loading (Type 4C) with implant-supported fixed dental prostheses (IFDPs) in partially edentulous patients. Only human studies with at least 10 cases and a minimum follow-up time of 12 months, reporting on solid-screw-type implants with rough surfaces and an intra-osseous diameter between 3 and 6 mm, were included. A cumulative survival rate for each type of the implant placement and loading protocols was weighted by the duration of follow-up and number of implants.
RESULTS
The search provided 5,248 titles from which 2,362 abstracts and 449 full-text articles were screened. A total of 69 publications that comprised 23 comparative studies (15 randomized controlled trials, 7 controlled clinical trials) and 47 noncomparative studies (34 prospective cohort studies, 13 retrospective cohort studies) were included for analysis. Considerable heterogeneity in study design was found, and therefore, a meta-analysis of controlled studies was not possible. The weighted cumulative survival rate of each type of placement and loading protocol was 98.4% (Type 1A), 98.2% (Type 1B), 96.0% (Type 1C), 100% (Type 2-3B), 96.3% (Type 2-3C), 97.9% (Type 4A), 98.3% (Type 4B), and 97.7% (Type 4C). Type 1C, Type 2-3C, Type 4B, and Type 4C were scientifically and clinically validated (SCV). Type 1A, Type 1B, and Type 4A were clinically documented (CD), and Type 2-3A and Type 2-3B were clinically insufficiently documented (CID).
CONCLUSIONS
Evaluating outcomes in oral implantology by combining the placement and loading protocols are paramount. The selected loading protocol appears to influence the outcome of immediate implant placement.
Topics: Humans; Databases, Factual; Dental Implantation, Endosseous; Dental Implants; Dental Prosthesis, Implant-Supported; Denture, Partial, Fixed; Immediate Dental Implant Loading; Mouth, Edentulous
PubMed: 30328194
DOI: 10.1111/clr.13276 -
The International Journal of...To synthesize evidence derived from systematic reviews (SRs) on different interventions for rehabilitation of the edentulous maxilla with implant-supported restorations.
PURPOSE
To synthesize evidence derived from systematic reviews (SRs) on different interventions for rehabilitation of the edentulous maxilla with implant-supported restorations.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
A protocol-oriented search was established to address the PICO question: What is the current evidence regarding rehabilitation of the edentulous maxilla with different implant-supported prostheses in terms of implant and prosthesis survival? The primary outcomes were implant and prosthesis survival rates evaluated from SRs of clinical studies including adult patients with complete edentulism of the maxilla and comparing different implant-supported rehabilitation strategies. Methodologic quality of the SRs was assessed with the AMSTAR-2 tool.
RESULTS
The final selection process led to the inclusion of 36 SRs that were grouped as: (1) addressing maxillae with sufficient bone to place implants; (2) addressing maxillae with insufficient bone to place implants; and (3) comparing different types of prosthesis, number of implants, patient-reported outcomes, and economic evaluations. The literature describes four or more implants as suitable for full-arch fixed prostheses and implant-supported overdentures; in both cases, the overall survival rate is > 95%. Mini-implants present very high short-term failure rates (> 30%). Poor description of technical complications, adjustments, and maintenance and corresponding costs precluded a cost-effectiveness analysis.
CONCLUSION
No implant-supported rehabilitation of the edentulous maxilla (fixed or removable) should be supported on fewer than four implants. A one-piece full-arch fixed dental prosthesis can be supported by a minimum of two anterior axial plus two posterior distally tilted implants or by six to eight axial implants symmetrically distributed through the posterior and anterior regions of the arch. Four to six implants is the advised number to support an overdenture. The use of mini-implants in the maxilla is inadvisable.
Topics: Adult; Dental Implants; Dental Prosthesis, Implant-Supported; Dental Restoration Failure; Follow-Up Studies; Humans; Jaw, Edentulous; Maxilla; Mouth, Edentulous; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 33571327
DOI: 10.11607/ijp.7162 -
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 -
International Journal of Implant... Jul 2021This systematic review aimed to propose a treatment protocol for repairing intraoperative perforation of the Schneiderian membrane during maxillary sinus floor... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Management of Schneiderian membrane perforations during maxillary sinus floor augmentation with lateral approach in relation to subsequent implant survival rates: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
BACKGROUND
This systematic review aimed to propose a treatment protocol for repairing intraoperative perforation of the Schneiderian membrane during maxillary sinus floor augmentation (MSFA) procedures with lateral window technique. In turn, to assess subsequent implant survival rates placed below repaired membranes compared with intact membranes and therefore determine whether membrane perforation constitutes a risk factor for implant survival.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
This review was conducted according to PRISMA guidelines. Two independent reviewers conducted an electronic search for articles published between 2008 and April 30, 2020, in four databases: (1) The National Library of Medicine (MEDLINE/PubMed) via Ovid; (2) Web of Science (WOS); (3) SCOPUS; and (4) Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); also, a complementary handsearch was carried out. The Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale was used to assess the quality of evidence in the studies reviewed.
RESULTS
Seven articles fulfilled the inclusion criteria and were analyzed. A total of 1598 sinus lift surgeries were included, allowing the placement of 3604 implants. A total of 1115 implants were placed under previously perforated and repaired membranes, obtaining a survival rate of 97.68%, while 2495 implants were placed below sinus membranes that were not damaged during surgery, obtaining a survival rate of 98.88%. The rate of Schneiderian membrane perforation shown in the systematic review was 30.6%. In the articles reviewed, the most widely used technique for repairing perforated membranes was collagen membrane repair.
CONCLUSIONS
Schneiderian membrane perforation during MFSA procedures with lateral approach is not a risk factor for dental implant survival (p=0.229; RR 0.977; 95% CI 0.941-1.015). The knowledge of the exact size of the membrane perforation is essential for deciding on the right treatment plan.
Topics: Maxillary Sinus; Nasal Mucosa; Prostheses and Implants; Sinus Floor Augmentation; Survival Rate; United States
PubMed: 34250560
DOI: 10.1186/s40729-021-00346-7 -
International Journal of Implant... Nov 2021Implant-assisted removable partial dentures (IARPDs) have recently become popular, but little information is available on the treatment outcomes based on the Kennedy... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Implant-assisted removable partial dentures (IARPDs) have recently become popular, but little information is available on the treatment outcomes based on the Kennedy classification and attachment types.
OBJECTIVE
The objective of this review was to evaluate the treatment outcomes of IARPD delivered for distal extension edentulous areas based on the differences in the Kennedy classification and attachment type.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
English-language clinical studies on IARPD published between January 1980 and February 2020 were collected from MEDLINE (via PubMed), the Cochrane Library (via the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials), Scopus online database, and manual searching. Two reviewers selected the articles based on pre-determined inclusion and exclusion criteria, followed by data extraction and analysis.
RESULTS
Eighty-one studies were selected after evaluating the titles and abstracts of 2410 papers. Nineteen studies were finally included after the perusal of the full text. Fourteen studies focused on Class I, 4 studies investigated both Class I and II, and only 1 study was conducted on Kennedy's class II. Eight types of attachments were reported. The ball attachment was the most frequently used attachment, which was employed in 8 of the included studies. The implant survival rate ranged from 91 to 100%. The reported marginal bone loss ranged from 0.3 mm to 2.30 mm. The patient satisfaction was higher with IARPD than with conventional RPDs or that before treatment. The results of prosthetic complications were heterogeneous and inconclusive.
CONCLUSION
IARPD exhibited favorable clinical outcomes when used as a replacement for distal extension edentulous areas. The comparison between the clinical outcomes of Kennedy's class I and II was inconclusive owing to the lack of studies focusing on Kennedy Class II alone. The stud attachment was the most commonly used type in IARPDs. Overall, the different attachment systems did not influence the implant survival rate and patient satisfaction. Further high-quality studies are needed to investigate the attachment systems used in IARPD.
Topics: Dental Implants; Dental Prosthesis, Implant-Supported; Denture, Partial, Removable; Humans; Patient Satisfaction; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 34773513
DOI: 10.1186/s40729-021-00394-z -
Journal of Prosthodontic Research Jan 2018Several studies reported better outcomes when restoring edentulous mandible with unsplinted IODs compared to CCDs; however, it is not clear if these outcomes remain when... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis
PURPOSE
Several studies reported better outcomes when restoring edentulous mandible with unsplinted IODs compared to CCDs; however, it is not clear if these outcomes remain when the full literature is considered. The aim of this systematic review is to compare conventional complete dentures (CCDs) to unsplinted implant-retained overdentures (IODs) with regard to efficacy, satisfaction and quality of life.
STUDY SELECTION
The main question addressed was: How do CCDs compare to unsplinted IODs with regard to efficacy, satisfaction and quality of life? Three databases were electronically searched to identify articles comparing CCD to unsplinted IOD. Twenty-six articles were selected and reviewed in full. Of these selected articles, twenty-five compared CCDs restoring function in both arches to a maxillary CCD opposing a mandibular IOD retained by two unsplinted implants. Only one articles compared a maxillary CCDs to a maxillary IOD.
RESULTS
Outcome measures varied among the studies, including the Oral Health Impact Profile (OHIP), visual analogue scales (VAS), and masticatory performance tests. Overall, IODs were associated with significantly better patient's masticatory performance and quality of life as indicated by Oral Health as Related to Quality of Life (OHRQoL). Mandibular unsplinted IODs were more likely than CCDs to be associated with improved OHRQoL for edentulous patients and were associated with significantly higher ratings of overall satisfaction, comfort, stability, ability to speak and ability to chew.
CONCLUSIONS
Results of this systematic review indicate the superiority of IODs retained by two unsplinted mandibular implants when compared to CCDs with regards to efficacy, satisfaction and quality of life.
Topics: Dental Implants; Dental Prosthesis, Implant-Supported; Denture Retention; Denture, Complete; Denture, Overlay; Humans; Jaw, Edentulous; Mandible; Mastication; Patient Satisfaction; Quality of Life
PubMed: 28666845
DOI: 10.1016/j.jpor.2017.06.004 -
The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry Jan 2019Clinicians are currently unable to quantify the psychosocial, functional, and esthetic effects of prosthetic interventions to replace teeth. Understanding the effects of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
STATEMENT OF PROBLEM
Clinicians are currently unable to quantify the psychosocial, functional, and esthetic effects of prosthetic interventions to replace teeth. Understanding the effects of treatment to replace teeth on oral health-related quality of life (OHRQoL) is important for informed consent. A systematic review of the evidence of OHRQoL improvements with prosthodontic tooth replacement and a comparison of outcomes between treatment modalities is therefore indicated.
PURPOSE
The purpose of this systematic review was to examine the OHRQoL of patients with partial edentulism after different dental prosthetic treatments.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
Electronic database and manual searches were conducted to identify cohort studies and clinical trials reporting on the OHRQoL of individuals receiving implant-supported crowns (ISCs), implant-supported fixed dental prostheses (IFDPs), implant-supported removable dental prostheses (IRDPs), tooth-supported fixed dental prostheses (TFDPs), and removable partial dentures (RPDs). Two reviewers independently conducted article selection, data extraction, and quality assessment. Random-effects models were used to compare OHRQoL change scores (standardized mean change, 95% confidence intervals).
RESULTS
Of the 2147 identified studies, 2 randomized controlled trials and 21 cohort studies met the inclusion criteria. Overall, studies were of low or moderate risk of bias. Pooled mean OHRQoL change ≤9 months was 15.3 for TFDP, 11.9 for RPD, and 14.9 for IFDP. Pooled standardized mean change OHRQoL change >9 months was 13.2 for TFDP and 15.8 for IFDP. Direct comparisons ≤9 months between TFDP against IFDP and RPD against IFDP significantly favored IFDP in both cases.
CONCLUSIONS
TFDP and IFDP had short- and long-term positive effects on OHRQoL. RPDs positively affected OHRQoL in the short term. IFDP showed greater short-term improvement in OHRQoL than RPD and TFDP.
Topics: Databases, Factual; Dental Implants; Dental Prosthesis, Implant-Supported; Denture, Partial, Fixed; Denture, Partial, Removable; Esthetics, Dental; Humans; Mouth, Edentulous; Oral Health; Quality of Life; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 30006220
DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2018.03.003