-
Journal of Prosthodontics : Official... Apr 2024This systematic review was conducted to evaluate the prevalence of interproximal contact loss (ICL) between implant restorations and adjacent teeth in relation to age,... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
PURPOSE
This systematic review was conducted to evaluate the prevalence of interproximal contact loss (ICL) between implant restorations and adjacent teeth in relation to age, gender, follow-up time, and arch location.
METHODS
This study followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines and was registered in the Open Science Framework (OSF). The formulated population, intervention, comparison, outcome (PICO) question was "What is the prevalence of the ICL between implant restoration and adjacent teeth?" The search strategy used four main electronic databases and an additional manual search was performed until February 2023. Clinical studies that evaluated the prevalence of interproximal open contact between implant restorations and adjacent teeth were included. A qualitative analysis for clinical studies was used to assess the risk of bias. In addition, a single-arm meta-analysis of proportion was performed to evaluate the percentage of mesial versus distal open contact and total ICL between implant restoration and adjacent teeth.
RESULTS
Fifteen studies published between 2014 and 2023 met the eligibility criteria. Seven studies presented ICL rates higher than 20%. All studies evaluated ICL in posterior regions (molar, premolar area). Five studies had an ICL rate lower than 50% and three studies had an ICL rate higher than 50%. One study assessed the interproximal contact at three months post-restoration insertion, four studies assessed the interproximal contact at 1-year follow-up and nine studies evaluated the interproximal contact over 2 years of follow-up. Mesial and distal ICL rates were 44.2% (95% CI: 30.6% to 58.6%) and 27.5% (95% CI: 10.5% to 55.0%), respectively. The heterogeneity between studies was high (I (95% CI) = 87.8% (75.9% to 93.8%).
CONCLUSION
Based on the results of the included studies, the prevalence of ICL was high, occurring more frequently at the mesial contact. There were no significant differences in relation to age, gender, and arch location.
Topics: Humans; Dental Implants; Dental Implantation, Endosseous; Tooth; Mouth, Edentulous; Molar
PubMed: 37794763
DOI: 10.1111/jopr.13780 -
BMC Oral Health Jan 2024White spot lesions represent the first stage of caries and their prevalence has been increasing in recent years, particularly in patients undergoing orthodontic...
BACKGROUND
White spot lesions represent the first stage of caries and their prevalence has been increasing in recent years, particularly in patients undergoing orthodontic treatment. DIferential diagnosis and lesion activity are essential to decide on the clinical approaches to treatment. The aim of this study is to understand if the new diagnostic tools such as fluorescence, microradiography and computed microtomography have the potential to change the conventional treatment of white spots".
METHODS
A systematic search of available studies in the literature was carried out, using PRISMA guidelines, in Pubmed and Scopus electronic databases and manually to identify relevant articles to answer the PICO question: "Do the new diagnostic tools have the potential to change the conventional treatment of white spots?". This systematic review included randomized controlled trials (RCT), cross-sectional and longitudinal studies complying with the following inclusion criteria: (i) studies in humans, (ii) studies about white spot lesions, (iii) studies published between 2012 and 2023, (iv) studies having both diagnosis and treatment and (v) studies with full text available. In this review we excluded other systematic reviews of clinical trials and in vitro studies. The RoB tool was used to assess the risk of bias.
RESULTS
The systematic literature search identified 143 potentially relevant references, which after applying the exclusion criteria, resulted in 20 articles. Regarding diagnostic methods, most articles found were based on conventional methods of visual examination (n:10) or fluorescence (n:7). The least referenced diagnostic techniques were based on the use of clinical photographs (n:2), cross-sectional microradiography (n:1) and computed microtomography (n:1). The use of DIAGNOdent was reported by 3 in vitro studies. With regard to therapies, most studies reported the use of infiltrating resin (n:7) and fluoride-based products (n:5). Other studies have reported the use of self-assembling peptide P11-4 (n:1), home care (n:1), casein phosphopeptide-amorphous calcium phosphate (n:2) and hydrochloric acid (n:1). Combination therapies were also considered.
CONCLUSION
Diagnostic tool does not have the potential to change the form of treatment, whether it is a conventional method or a more differentiated one.
Topics: Humans; Combined Modality Therapy; Dental Care; Caseins; Databases, Factual; Dental Caries; Fluorides
PubMed: 38195439
DOI: 10.1186/s12903-023-03720-6 -
The Journal of Oral Implantology Dec 2023Dental implants are a predictable option to replace missing teeth. Patients on antiresorptive medications used to treat disorders associated with bone resorption may... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Dental implants are a predictable option to replace missing teeth. Patients on antiresorptive medications used to treat disorders associated with bone resorption may need dental implants to replace missing teeth. The data on implant failure in patients on antiresorptive medication requiring dental implants, is conflicting and limited. This systematic review aims to investigate if antiresorptive medications have any clinical impact on dental implant survival. Electronic databases were searched until May 2020. The focus question (PICOS): Participants: humans, Interventions: implant placement surgery in patients on antiresorptive medication, Comparisons: patients on antiresorptive medication vs control (patients not on antiresorptive medication), Outcomes: implant survival, and Study design: clinical studies. The protocol of this systematic review was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42020209083). Fourteen nonrandomized studies were selected for data extraction and risk of bias assessment using the ROBINS-1 tool. Only studies with a control were included for the meta-analysis, 8 articles were included in the meta-analysis using implant-level data, and 5 articles were included in the meta-analysis using patient-level data. There was no statistical significance between the 2 groups at the patient level based on 265 patients. However, there was a statistically significant difference at the implant level based on 2697 implants. Therefore, antiresorptive medications, mainly bisphosphonates (BPs), may significantly contribute to implant failure. Antiresorptive medications, especially BPs may reduce implant survival and impair the osseointegration of dental implants. Failed implants in patients on BPs may not lead to osteonecrosis and may be replaced with success.
Topics: Humans; Dental Implants; Bone Density Conservation Agents; Diphosphonates; Osteonecrosis; Osseointegration
PubMed: 37905745
DOI: 10.1563/aaid-joi-D-21-00160 -
Nigerian Journal of Clinical Practice Sep 2023Dental implants are considered an ideal treatment for a missing single tooth. Immediate loading of implants can hasten the procedure, providing comfort to the patients.... (Review)
Review
Dental implants are considered an ideal treatment for a missing single tooth. Immediate loading of implants can hasten the procedure, providing comfort to the patients. Recently, immediate loading of implants has gained much importance as it helps hasten the procedure and provides more comfort to patients. A previous systematic review published 5 years ago compared the success rates between immediate and conventional loading. There are several factors that influence the success rate of implants that were not discussed in detail in the previous review. Hence, the present systematic review is done to report differences in the outcomes from single implant restorations of missing teeth in the posterior region in patients who were subjected to immediate loading and conventional loading. A follow up for 1 year was done. Electronic databases of Medline, Scopus, and Web of Science were searched for publications in the English Language during May 2021. The search results yielded 306 articles, out of which 225 were excluded based on title and abstract screening. Screening of the remaining 81 full text articles yielded 14 original research articles that satisfied the predefined inclusion criteria. Meta analysis was not possible due to the heterogeneity of the data. The overall success rate of the immediate loading of a single implant is 94.31%. Implants in the maxillary region had a higher survival rate than those in the mandibular region. The age range between 18 and 80 years showed good prognosis and outcomes in older individuals. Good oral hygiene was emphasized for all patients to prevent any secondary conditions or delays in healing.
Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Humans; Middle Aged; Young Adult; Anodontia; Dental Implants; Dental Prosthesis, Implant-Supported; Immediate Dental Implant Loading; Tooth Loss
PubMed: 37794532
DOI: 10.4103/njcp.njcp_884_22 -
BMC Oral Health Jan 2024Periodontal phenotype is regarded to be one of the key factors influencing the efficacy of restorative therapies in dental practice. The objective of the systematic...
BACKGROUND
Periodontal phenotype is regarded to be one of the key factors influencing the efficacy of restorative therapies in dental practice. The objective of the systematic review was to explore the importance of thin and thick periodontal phenotypes and how they affect the outcome of periodontal and restorative therapies by looking at a number of academic publications from various online databases.
METHODS
Following the PRISMA guidelines (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review standards), relevant data will be searched and retrieved from three significant scientific databases, including PubMed, EBSCO, and Scopus. The articles with full texts that matched the keywords and published in English between 2018 and 2023 were taken into consideration.
RESULTS
The majorities of these articles were based on the type of periodontal phenotype and their impact on periodontal and restorative treatment outcomes were selected. The initial search yielded a total of 530 articles. Only 273 were relevant to the review's objectives, and these were considered for determining eligibility. Only 20 publications were eligible for analysis.
CONCLUSION
Understanding these anatomical aspects of periodontal phenotype is crucial to both periodontology and restorative dentistry. The clinical outcome of restorative, prosthetic, orthodontic, surgical, and periodontal therapies is determined in large part by the periodontal phenotype, which also plays a significant role in clinical failure or success in dental treatments.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
This study protocol registered with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) dated 16th June 2023 with the registration ID CRD42023432568.
Topics: Humans; Periodontics; Dental Care; Databases, Factual; Phenotype
PubMed: 38191372
DOI: 10.1186/s12903-023-03777-3 -
Journal of Clinical Periodontology Feb 2024The epidemiological relationship between periodontitis and caries remains controversial, and evidence synthesis is currently lacking. Therefore, this systematic review... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
AIM
The epidemiological relationship between periodontitis and caries remains controversial, and evidence synthesis is currently lacking. Therefore, this systematic review was designed to answer the following PECO question: 'In human adults (P), do subjects suffering from periodontitis (E) have higher presence/number of untreated carious lesions and caries experience (O) than subjects not suffering from periodontitis (C)?'.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Observational studies that met specific inclusion criteria established to answer to the PECO question were included. Two review authors independently searched for eligible studies, screened the titles and abstracts, carried out the full text analysis, extracted the data and performed the risk of bias assessment. In case of disagreement, a third review author took the final decision during ad hoc consensus meetings. Data synthesis was carried out through random-effects meta-analyses.
RESULTS
A total of 18 studies on 21 cohorts, involving 135,018 participants, were included. Meta-analyses showed a significant association between periodontitis and the presence of at least one tooth with either untreated carious lesions (odds ratio [OR] = 1.63; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.32-2.01; p <.00; I = 83.0%) or caries experience (decayed and filled teeth ≥ 1) (OR = 1.27; 95% CI: 1.01-1.59; p = .038; I = 90.0%). Moreover, subjects with periodontitis exhibited a higher number of surfaces (difference in means [MD] = 0.86; 95% CI: 0.46-1.27; p <.001; I = 0.0%) and teeth (MD = 0.35; 95% CI: 0.28-0.42; p <.001; I = 69.6%) with untreated carious lesions, as well as a higher number of teeth with caries experience (standardized difference in means [SMD] = 1.46; 95% CI: 0.15-2.78; p = .029; I = 98.9%) compared with those without periodontitis. Sensitivity analyses focusing on severe periodontitis as exposure mostly showed consistent results. Estimates for caries experience were only slightly attenuated in adjusted models compared with crude models. Subgroup analyses by caries location also indicated that periodontitis was associated only with root caries, while it was not with caries affecting the anatomical crown.
CONCLUSIONS
Periodontitis was found to be associated with the presence and number of treated/untreated root carious lesions. Therefore, caries-specific preventive measures (e.g., fluorides) should be considered for individuals with periodontitis.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Dental Caries; Periodontitis; Fluorides; Dental Care; Root Caries
PubMed: 38084804
DOI: 10.1111/jcpe.13910 -
Dental Materials : Official Publication... Dec 2023To answer the PICO(S) question: Is there a difference in clinical longevity between direct and indirect resin composite restorations placed on permanent posterior teeth? (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVES
To answer the PICO(S) question: Is there a difference in clinical longevity between direct and indirect resin composite restorations placed on permanent posterior teeth?
DATA
Randomized controlled clinical trials (RCTs) investigating direct and indirect resin composite restorations in posterior permanent teeth were considered.
SOURCES
Several electronic databases were searched, with no language or date restrictions. The revised Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias (RoB-2) was used to analyze the studies; meta-analyses were run and the certainty of evidence was assessed by the GRADE tool. A subgroup meta-analysis was performed for resin composite restorations placed on posterior worn dentition.
STUDY SELECTION
Twenty-three articles were included in qualitative synthesis, while 8 studies were used for meta-analyses. According to the RoB-2 tool, 5 studies were ranked as "low risk", 7 had "some concerns", while 11 papers were rated as "high risk" of bias. There were no statistically significant differences in short-term (p = 0.27; RR=1.54, 95% CI [0.72, 3.33]), medium-term (p = 0.27; RR=1.87, 95% CI [0.61, 5.72]) and long-term longevity (p = 0.86; RR=0.95, 95% CI [0.57, 1.59]). The choice of restorative technique had no influence on short-term survival of resin composite restorations placed on worn dentition (p = 0.13; RR=0.46, 95% CI [0.17, 1.25]). The certainty of evidence was rated as "very low".
CONCLUSIONS
Direct and indirect resin composite restorations may show similar clinical longevity in posterior region, regardless of the observation period or substrate (wear-affected and non-affected dentition). The very low quality of evidence suggests that more long-term RCTs are needed to confirm our results.
Topics: Dental Restoration, Permanent; Composite Resins; Molar
PubMed: 37827872
DOI: 10.1016/j.dental.2023.10.009 -
Journal of Prosthodontic Research Jan 2024This scoping review aimed to systematically map research regarding implant-assisted removable partial dentures (IARPDs), and identify existing gaps in knowledge. (Review)
Review
PURPOSE
This scoping review aimed to systematically map research regarding implant-assisted removable partial dentures (IARPDs), and identify existing gaps in knowledge.
STUDY SELECTION
Two reviewers independently conducted a search of the MEDLINE-PubMed and Scopus databases according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) extension for Scoping Review and included articles published in English up to August 31, 2022, including human studies, reviews, and in vitro studies. Expert opinions, animal studies, and clinical studies involving complete overdentures were excluded, and ten aspects for establishing the treatment strategy for IARPDs were examined.
RESULTS
One hundred and twelve articles were chosen. There were two treatment modalities: IARPDs retained by implant- and tooth-supported surveyed single crowns (SCs) or fixed partial dentures (FPDs). In IARPDs retained by tooth-supported surveyed SCs or FPDs, the survival rate of dental implants for IARPDs was relatively higher with a wide range of marginal bone loss and many complications, but with improved functional performance, oral health-related quality of life, and patient satisfaction. There were limited data on survival or success rates and designs of IARPDs, attachment selections, length and diameter, inclination, placement sites, and loading protocols of implants, regardless of prosthetic types. There was limited information on maxillary IARPDs except for survival rates of implants.
CONCLUSIONS
Although IARPDs could become a useful treatment strategy, there is limited scientific consensus with gaps in knowledge about their use. Additional well-designed clinical and in vitro studies are necessary to scientifically establish IARPDs as definitive prostheses in implant dentistry.
Topics: Humans; Dental Implants; Dental Prosthesis, Implant-Supported; Denture, Partial, Removable; Patient Satisfaction; Quality of Life; Tooth
PubMed: 37164658
DOI: 10.2186/jpr.JPR_D_22_00252 -
BMC Oral Health Nov 2023This study aimed to compare the pain intensity and impacts on oral health-related quality of life (OHRQoL) between orthodontic patients treated with clear aligners (CAs)... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Comparison of pain intensity and impacts on oral health-related quality of life between orthodontic patients treated with clear aligners and fixed appliances: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
OBJECTIVE
This study aimed to compare the pain intensity and impacts on oral health-related quality of life (OHRQoL) between orthodontic patients treated with clear aligners (CAs) and fixed appliances (FAs).
METHODS
A systematic search was conducted up to December 2022 using PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Embase. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and prospective non-randomized controlled trials (non-RCTs) comparing pain intensity or OHRQoL between patients treated with CAs and FAs were included. The risk of bias (RoB) of individual studies was evaluated using the Cochrane RoB tool 2.0 and ROBINS-I tool for RCTs and non-RCTs, respectively. Further, meta-analyses were separately conducted for each included study using the total oral health impact profile (OHIP)-14 and visual analog scale (VAS) scores to evaluate OHRQoL and pain intensity, respectively.
RESULTS
Overall, 12 studies (5 RCTs and 7 non-RCTs) were included in the study. Subgroup analyses conducted according to the total OHIP-14 scores revealed that patients treated with CAs had higher OHRQoL at 1 week, 1 month, and 6 months of the treatment. Meanwhile, subgroup analyses conducted according to the VAS scores revealed that pain levels were lower in the CA group only at 3 and 4 days of the treatment.
CONCLUSIONS
Patients treated with clear aligners had higher OHRQoL than those treated with fixed appliances during orthodontic treatment. However, OHRQoL appeared to be similar between the two groups at the end of the treatment. Moreover, patients treated with clear aligners experienced lesser pain than those treated with fixed appliances on the third and fourth day after the initial treatment. The difference in pain intensity between the two treatment modalities was not noted at other time points.
Topics: Humans; Pain Measurement; Orthodontic Appliances, Fixed; Pain; Quality of Life; Orthodontic Appliances, Removable; Orthodontic Appliances
PubMed: 38001455
DOI: 10.1186/s12903-023-03681-w -
Lasers in Medical Science Aug 2023The aim of this study is to systematically summarize the available evidence regarding low-level laser therapy (LLLT) speed-up effect on dental alignment in comprehensive... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
The aim of this study is to systematically summarize the available evidence regarding low-level laser therapy (LLLT) speed-up effect on dental alignment in comprehensive orthodontic treatment. An extensive electronic search was conducted in PubMed, ScienceDirect, Cochrane, Web of Science, and Scopus up to February 20, 2023. The Cochrane risk of bias tool and the Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Form were used by two authors independently to assess the risk of bias (RoB). Statistical analysis was performed by Review Manager 5.3. The eight eligible trials were reviewed and included in qualitative synthesis. Four studies reported the overall time of leveling and alignment (OLAT, days), enabling a synthesizing of the data. The meta-analysis results showed that LLLT significantly reduced the overall time of leveling and alignment compared to control group (MD=-30.36, 95% CI range -41.50 to -19.22, P<0.0001), with moderate heterogeneity (χ2=4.10, P=0.25, I=27%). Based on the data available, statistically significant evidence with moderate risk of bias suggests that LLLT may have a positive effect on accelerating dental alignment. However, due to the differences in intervention strategy and evaluating method, the conclusions should be interpreted with caution.
Topics: Low-Level Light Therapy; Time Factors; Tooth Movement Techniques
PubMed: 37578665
DOI: 10.1007/s10103-023-03835-w