-
Heliyon Sep 2023Recently, clinical trials have assessed the effectiveness of Silver Diamine Fluoride (SDF) as an indirect pulp capping material (IPC) in primary teeth. This systematic...
INTRODUCTION
Recently, clinical trials have assessed the effectiveness of Silver Diamine Fluoride (SDF) as an indirect pulp capping material (IPC) in primary teeth. This systematic review aimed to assess the evidence presented in these trials.
DATA SOURCES
A comprehensive search identified relevant studies through five electronic databases (PubMed, Scopus, ClinicalTrials.gov, ScienceDirect, and Cochrane). Search strategies were designed using the PICO model to identify all studies that investigated SDF as an IPC compared to calcium hydroxide (CaOH) or mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA). Quality assessment and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) were used to assess the level of evidence.
STUDY SELECTION
Four clinical trials were found to be suitable for inclusion in the qualitative synthesis and three studies were included in the quantitative analysis. Three studies compared SDF with CaOH and only one study compared SDF, CaOH, and MTA. Only one randomized controlled trial (RCT) had a low risk of bias, and the non-RCT study had a moderate risk of bias. The level of evidence based on the GRADE was low. Three out of four studies showed higher clinical and radiographic outcomes with SDF than with CaOH. One non-RCT study showed that SDF resulted in the least reparative dentin at the 6-months follow-up. The meta-analysis showed a non-significant difference between the SDF and CaOH groups (P = 0.36).
CONCLUSION
There is little evidence showing a higher clinical and radiographic outcome of SDF compared to CaOH as an IPC material in primary molars.
CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE
This systematic review updates pediatric dentists regarding the effectiveness of using SDF as indirect pulp caping in primary teeth.
PubMed: 37809634
DOI: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e19462 -
Polymers Feb 2024In recent years, composite resin materials have been the most frequently used materials for direct restorations of posterior teeth. These materials have some clinically... (Review)
Review
In recent years, composite resin materials have been the most frequently used materials for direct restorations of posterior teeth. These materials have some clinically relevant limitations due to their lack of fracture toughness, especially when used in larger cavities with high volume factors or when utilized as direct or indirect overlays or crown restorations. Recently, short-fiber-reinforced composite materials have been used in bi-structure restorations as a dentine substituting material due to their superior mechanical properties; however, there is no scientific consensus as to whether they can be used as full restorations. The aim of our review was to examine the available literature and gather scientific evidence on this matter. Two independent authors performed a thorough literature search using PubMed and ScienceDirect up until December 2023. This study followed the PRISMA guidelines, and the risk of bias was assessed using the QUIN tool. The authors selected in vitro studies that used short-fiber-reinforced composite materials as complete restorations, with a conventional composite material as a comparison group. Out of 2079 potentially relevant articles, 16 met our inclusion criteria. All of the included studies reported that the usage of short-fiber-reinforced composites improved the restoration's load-bearing capacity. Fifteen of the included publications examined the fracture pattern, and thirteen of them reported a more favorable fracture outcome for the short-fiber-reinforced group. Only one article reported a more favorable fracture pattern for the control group; however, the difference between groups was not significant. Within the limitations of this review, the evidence suggests that short-fiber-reinforced composites can be used effectively as complete restorations to reinforce structurally compromised teeth.
PubMed: 38475274
DOI: 10.3390/polym16050590 -
BMC Oral Health Apr 2024Decellularized extracellular matrix (dECM) from several tissue sources has been proposed as a promising alternative to conventional scaffolds used in regenerative...
BACKGROUND
Decellularized extracellular matrix (dECM) from several tissue sources has been proposed as a promising alternative to conventional scaffolds used in regenerative endodontic procedures (REPs). This systematic review aimed to evaluate the histological outcomes of studies utilizing dECM-derived scaffolds for REPs and to analyse the contributing factors that might influence the nature of regenerated tissues.
METHODS
The PRISMA 2020 guidelines were used. A search of articles published until April 2024 was conducted in Google Scholar, Scopus, PubMed and Web of Science databases. Additional records were manually searched in major endodontic journals. Original articles including histological results of dECM in REPs and in-vivo studies were included while reviews, in-vitro studies and clinical trials were excluded. The quality assessment of the included studies was analysed using the ARRIVE guidelines. Risk of Bias assessment was done using the (SYRCLE) risk of bias tool.
RESULTS
Out of the 387 studies obtained, 17 studies were included for analysis. In most studies, when used as scaffolds with or without exogenous cells, dECM showed the potential to enhance angiogenesis, dentinogenesis and to regenerate pulp-like and dentin-like tissues. However, the included studies showed heterogeneity of decellularization methods, animal models, scaffold source, form and delivery, as well as high risk of bias and average quality of evidence.
DISCUSSION
Decellularized ECM-derived scaffolds could offer a potential off-the-shelf scaffold for dentin-pulp regeneration in REPs. However, due to the methodological heterogeneity and the average quality of the studies included in this review, the overall effectiveness of decellularized ECM-derived scaffolds is still unclear. More standardized preclinical research is needed as well as well-constructed clinical trials to prove the efficacy of these scaffolds for clinical translation.
OTHER
The protocol was registered in PROSPERO database #CRD42023433026. This review was funded by the Science, Technology and Innovation Funding Authority (STDF) under grant number (44426).
Topics: Tissue Scaffolds; Regenerative Endodontics; Animals; Extracellular Matrix; Decellularized Extracellular Matrix; Dental Pulp; Models, Animal; Tissue Engineering; Regeneration
PubMed: 38689279
DOI: 10.1186/s12903-024-04266-x