-
Journal of Clinical Medicine Jul 2020The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate the clinical performance of tooth-borne partial and full-coverage fixed dental prosthesis fabricated... (Review)
Review
Clinical Performance of Partial and Full-Coverage Fixed Dental Restorations Fabricated from Hybrid Polymer and Ceramic CAD/CAM Materials: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate the clinical performance of tooth-borne partial and full-coverage fixed dental prosthesis fabricated using hybrid polymer and ceramic CAD/CAM materials regarding their biologic, technical and esthetical outcomes. PICOS search strategy was applied using MEDLINE and were searched for RCTs and case control studies by two reviewers using MeSH Terms. Bias risk was evaluated using the Cochrane collaboration tool and Newcastle-Ottawa assessment scale. A meta-analysis was conducted to calculate the mean long-term survival difference of both materials at two different periods (≤24, ≥36 months(m)). Mean differences in biologic, technical and esthetical complications of partial vs. full crown reconstructions were analyzed using software package R ( 0.05). 28 studies included in the systematic review and 25 studies in the meta-analysis. The overall survival rate was 99% (0.95-1.00, ≤24 m) and dropped to 95% (0.87-0.98, ≥36 m), while the overall success ratio was 88% (0.54-0.98; ≤24 m) vs. 77% (0.62-0.88; ≥36 m). No significance, neither for the follow-up time points, nor for biologic, technical and esthetical (88% vs. 77%; 90% vs. 74%; 96% vs. 95%) outcomes was overserved. A significance was found for the technical/clinical performance between full 93% (0.88-0.96) and partial 64% (0.34-0.86) crowns. The biologic success rate of partial crowns with 69% (0.42-0.87) was lower, but not significant compared to 91% (0.79-0.97) of full crowns. The esthetical success rate of partial crowns with 90% (0.65-0.98) was lower, but not significant compared to 99% (0.92-1.00) of full crowns.
PubMed: 32635470
DOI: 10.3390/jcm9072107 -
Australian Endodontic Journal : the... Dec 2023This review investigated whether any therapeutic options influenced the outcome of treatment for teeth with external cervical resorption. Out of 870 articles identified... (Review)
Review
This review investigated whether any therapeutic options influenced the outcome of treatment for teeth with external cervical resorption. Out of 870 articles identified by an electronic search, 60 clinical case reports and six case series were included. No randomised clinical trials were found. Risk of bias was assessed using Joanna Briggs Institute's tools. External surgical intervention was the preferred method of accessing the lesions. Removal of resorptive tissue was most often achieved mechanically. Bioactive endodontic cements were the preferred materials for restoring teeth. The outcome measures were based on clinical and radiographic parameters. Of the cases included in the review, no specific treatment approach had a superior outcome in relation to Heithersay's classification. Furthermore, due to the absence of randomised clinical trials, and the low level of evidence associated with case reports/case series, it was not possible to define the optimum clinical treatment for external cervical resorption.
Topics: Humans; Dental Cementum; Tooth Cervix; Neck; Root Resorption
PubMed: 37702252
DOI: 10.1111/aej.12794 -
Cureus Sep 2023This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the effect of different surface treatments on the shear bond strength (SBS) values between zirconia and resin... (Review)
Review
This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the effect of different surface treatments on the shear bond strength (SBS) values between zirconia and resin cement compared to untreated specimens. The effects of various surface treatments on the bond strength between zirconia and resin cement were investigated by searching relevant articles on PubMed, ScienceDirect, and Google Scholar databases. A total of 13 studies that met the inclusion and exclusion criteria and addressed the research question were selected for statistical analysis. The studies were evaluated for heterogeneity, and a meta-analysis was performed. In total, 13 in vitro studies were included in accordance with the eligibility criteria. All 13 studies consistently demonstrated that silica coating yielded the highest SBS, followed by sandblasting and laser treatments. The meta-analysis using a random-effect model indicated a significant intergroup comparison, except for a few studies. Among the three treatments examined, the silica coating of zirconia was identified as the most effective in enhancing the bond strength between zirconia and resin cement. Further controlled laboratory and clinical studies are necessary to validate these findings and explore additional factors that may influence the effects of these surface treatments.
PubMed: 37829958
DOI: 10.7759/cureus.45045 -
The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry Nov 2022Established restorative protocols for patients after head and neck radiotherapy are lacking, increasing the failure rates of dental adhesive restorations. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
STATEMENT OF PROBLEM
Established restorative protocols for patients after head and neck radiotherapy are lacking, increasing the failure rates of dental adhesive restorations.
PURPOSE
The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to analyze the evidence regarding the impact of head and neck radiotherapy on the longevity of dental adhesive restorations.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
A search was performed using PubMed, Scopus, and Embase in May 2018 (updated in November 2020). Data extraction was performed regarding the percentage of restoration failure among dental adhesive materials, including glass ionomer cements, resin-modified glass ionomer cements, and composite resins. Risk of bias was assessed by the meta-analysis of statistics assessment and review instrument (MAStARI). Confidence in cumulative evidence was evaluated by the Grading of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) protocol.
RESULTS
Four studies met the inclusion criteria. All included studies were classified as having a moderate risk of bias and reported results regarding class V restorations. Overall, composite resins presented lower failure rates at 2 years (30%) when compared with resin-modified glass ionomer (41%) and glass ionomer cements (57%). Meta-analysis showed that the risk of failure with glass ionomer cements was greater than with resin-modified glass ionomer cements (RR: 1.71, P<.001). Composite resins presented lower risk of failure when compared with glass ionomer (RR: 2.29, P<.001) and resin-modified glass ionomer cements (RR: 1.30, P=.03). Three studies reported results regarding fluoride compliance, which had a negative effect on the survival rates of glass ionomer and resin-modified glass ionomer cements and a positive effect on composite resin restorations.
CONCLUSIONS
The results suggest that composite resin restorations associated with fluoride gel compliance seems to be the best alternative for restoring class V lesions in patients after head and neck radiotherapy. However, the results showed moderate certainty of evidence, which justifies the need for more randomized clinical trials regarding this subject.
Topics: Humans; Dental Restoration, Permanent; Dental Marginal Adaptation; Fluorides; Dental Restoration Failure; Glass Ionomer Cements; Composite Resins; Resin Cements
PubMed: 33715834
DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2021.02.002 -
Dental Materials : Official Publication... Dec 2023The objective is to compare the preventive effect on secondary caries of glass ionomer cement (GIC) restorations with amalgam or resin-composite restorations. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVE
The objective is to compare the preventive effect on secondary caries of glass ionomer cement (GIC) restorations with amalgam or resin-composite restorations.
METHODS
Two independent researchers conducted a systematic search of English publications in PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane and Scopus. They selected randomized clinical trials comparing secondary caries incidences around GIC restorations (conventional GIC or resin-modified GIC) with amalgam or resin-composite restorations. Meta-analysis of the secondary-caries incidences with risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence interval (95% CI) as the effect measure was performed.
RESULTS
This review included 64 studies. These studies included 8310 GIC restorations and 5857 amalgam or resin-composite restorations with a follow-up period from 1 to 10 years. Twenty-one studies with 4807 restorations on primary teeth and thirty-eight studies with 4885 restorations on permanent teeth were eligible for meta-analysis. The GIC restorations had a lower secondary caries incidence compared with amalgam restorations in both primary dentition [RR= 0.55, 95% CI:0.41-0.72] and permanent dentition [RR= 0.20, 95% CI:0.11-0.38]. GIC restorations showed similar secondary caries incidence compared with resin-composite restorations in primary dentition [RR= 0.92, 95% CI:0.77-1.10] and permanent dentition [RR= 0.77, 95% CI:0.39-1.51]. Conventional GIC restorations showed similar secondary caries incidence compared with resin-modified GIC-restored teeth in both primary dentition [RR= 1.12, 95% CI:0.67-1.87] and permanent dentition [RR= 1.63, 95% CI:0.34-7.84].
CONCLUSIONS
GIC restorations showed a superior preventive effect against secondary caries compared to amalgam restorations, and a similar preventive effect against secondary caries compared to resin-composite restorations in both primary and permanent teeth. [PROSPERO Registration ID: CRD42022380959].
Topics: Humans; Dental Restoration, Permanent; Glass Ionomer Cements; Dental Caries Susceptibility; Dental Caries; Composite Resins; Dental Amalgam
PubMed: 37838608
DOI: 10.1016/j.dental.2023.10.008 -
Clinical Oral Investigations Jun 2023This meta-analysis aimed to elucidate the effects of various acid etching patterns on the sensitivity of teeth and their clinical effectiveness following composite resin... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVES
This meta-analysis aimed to elucidate the effects of various acid etching patterns on the sensitivity of teeth and their clinical effectiveness following composite resin repair.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
PubMed, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and Embase databases were searched for relevant studies on the postoperative sensitivity (POS) of composite resin restorations after using different bonding systems. The retrieval was from the inception of the databases to August 13, 2022, with no filter of written language. Literature screening was conducted by two independent researchers. The Cochrane risk-of-bias assessment tool was adopted for quality evaluation, and Stata 15.0 for analysis.
RESULTS
Twenty-five randomized controlled trials were included in the present study. Following resin composite restoration, 1309 restorations were bonded by self-etching (SE) adhesives, whereas 1271 restorations were bonded by total-etching (TE) adhesives. The meta-analyses showed that there is no evidence to prove the SE and TE will affect POS at present when measured using the modified United States Public Health Service (USPHS) criteria [RR = 1.00 (95% CI: 0.96, 1.04)], the World Dental Federation (FDI) [RR = 1.06 (95% CI: 0.98, 1.15)], or the visual analog scale (VAS) [SMD = 0.02 (95% CI: -0.15, 0.20)] scales. At a certain follow-up time, TE adhesives provide better outcomes in terms of color match, marginal staining, and marginal adaptation. In other words, TE adhesives have better esthetic results.
CONCLUSIONS
The type of bonding technique (ER and SE) does not affect the risk and degree of POS in class I/II and class V restorations. Further research is required to verify whether these findings apply to different forms of composite resin restorations.
CLINICAL RELEVANCE
Besides the fact that TE barely increase postoperative sensitivity, it also yields superior cosmetic results.
Topics: Composite Resins; Dental Cements; Dentin-Bonding Agents; Resin Cements; Dental Restoration, Permanent; Acid Etching, Dental; Esthetics, Dental; Dental Marginal Adaptation
PubMed: 37017757
DOI: 10.1007/s00784-023-05007-0 -
Orthodontics & Craniofacial Research Feb 2023To investigate whether flash-free adhesive ceramic brackets (FFA) have a better clinical performance than conventional adhesive ceramic brackets (CVA) in patients... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
To investigate whether flash-free adhesive ceramic brackets (FFA) have a better clinical performance than conventional adhesive ceramic brackets (CVA) in patients undergoing multi-bracket orthodontic treatment. PubMed, CENTRAL, Web of Science, Scopus, Embase, CNKI and Grey-literature were searched without restrictions up to January 2022. Both randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and controlled clinical trials (CCTs) were included. Risk of bias assessment was performed using the RoB 2.0 and ROBINS-I cochrane risk of bias tools. Eight articles, for seven studies, were included in this systematic review, and four split-mouth trials (SMT) were included in the meta-analysis. A random-effects meta-analysis found a statistically significant faster bonding time with FFA (mean difference [MD] = -93.85 seconds/quadrant, P = .002, 2 SMT), and no statistically significant difference regarding bracket failure rate at 6 months (risk ratio [RR] = 1.05; P = .93, 3 SMT), adhesive removal time (MD = -18.26 seconds/quadrant, P = .50, 2 SMT), and amount of remnant adhesive (MD = -0.13/bracket, P = .72, 2 SMT) between FFA and CVA. No difference (P > .05, 3 SMT) was found in enamel demineralization and periodontal measurements. CVA showed a statistically significant higher debonding pain score (P = .004, 1 SMT). Both flash-free and conventional adhesive ceramic brackets had a similar clinical performance, except for the faster bonding with FFA. Further, well-designed clinical trials are still required.
Topics: Humans; Dental Cements; Orthodontic Brackets; Dental Bonding; Dental Debonding; Ceramics; Materials Testing
PubMed: 35506474
DOI: 10.1111/ocr.12585 -
Laboratory Fracture Resilience of Hybrid Abutments Used in Oral Rehabilitation: A Systematic Review.Journal of Functional Biomaterials Aug 2022When implants are required in prosthodontics treatment, one of the most important decisions is the choice of the final crown and the type of connection to the implant... (Review)
Review
UNLABELLED
When implants are required in prosthodontics treatment, one of the most important decisions is the choice of the final crown and the type of connection to the implant through the abutment. Hybrid abutments are becoming a primary choice. They are projected and produced with materials whose properties guarantee the required mechanical features (including resistance) and take advantage of the hybrid abutment crown retention between screw and cement. However, a review of the mechanical resistance of the different abutment types and associated materials is still lacking. This review aimed to study the in vitro mechanical efficiency of the hybrid abutments used in oral rehabilitation.
METHODS
A systematic review was conducted using the PubMed, B-on, and Google Scholar databases according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines.
RESULTS
75 articles were identified from all databases, and 33 were selected after abstract screening. Thus, 21 studies were included in the review after full-text reading. Among the materials used for crowns, lithium disilicate was, aesthetically, the primary choice for its aesthetic and moderate strength. On the other hand, zirconia showed the best fracture resistance. Regarding the different kinds of abutments, there is still some lack of knowledge about the best design.
CONCLUSIONS
Within the limitations of this systematic review, we can conclude that hybrid pillars are an excellent choice for oral rehabilitation through implants, showing improved resistance when including materials such as zirconia and lithium disilicate.
PubMed: 35997458
DOI: 10.3390/jfb13030120 -
The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry Aug 2022Which surface treatment provides the optimal bond strength (BS) for the repair of resin nanoceramics (RNCs) and polymer-infiltrated ceramics (PICs) is unclear. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
STATEMENT OF PROBLEM
Which surface treatment provides the optimal bond strength (BS) for the repair of resin nanoceramics (RNCs) and polymer-infiltrated ceramics (PICs) is unclear.
PURPOSE
The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis of in vitro studies was to determine the best surface treatment protocols for the repair of PICs and RNCs.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
The PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science electronic databases were searched to select in vitro studies in English up to March 2020. Studies with fewer than 5 specimens, those that did not evaluate the BS of PICs or RNCs, and those with aging for fewer than 30 days and 5000 cycles were excluded. Data sets were extracted, and the mean differences were analyzed by using a systematic review software program.
RESULTS
Among 284 potentially eligible studies, 21 were selected for full-text analysis, and 9 were included in the systematic review, of which 6 were used in the meta-analysis. The meta-analyses were performed for each treatment surface versus their respective control group and their combinations according to material: RNCs and PICs. For RNCs, airborne-particle abrasion with aluminum oxide (AlO) treatment was statistically higher than tribochemical silica airborne-particle abrasion (CoJet) (P=.02, I=90%) and that in the hydrofluoric acid (HF) (P<.001, I=0%) groups and was statistically similar to diamond rotary instrument grinding (P=.40, I=54%). For PICs, the treatment with hydrofluoric acid (HF) was statistically significantly higher than with CoJet (P=.03, I=62%) and airborne-particle abrasion with AlO (P<.001, I=98%).
CONCLUSIONS
The best surface treatment protocol for repair varied according to the restorative material. HF followed by silanization is suggested for PICs, and airborne-particle abrasion with AlO or preparation with a diamond rotary instrument for RNCs.
Topics: Aluminum Oxide; Ceramics; Dental Bonding; Diamond; Hydrofluoric Acid; Materials Testing; Polymers; Resin Cements; Silanes; Surface Properties; Zirconium
PubMed: 33573835
DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2020.06.009 -
Evidence-based Dentistry Aug 2022Aim The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to analyse the clinical performance of GIOMER restorative composites and compare them with other conventional... (Review)
Review
Aim The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to analyse the clinical performance of GIOMER restorative composites and compare them with other conventional restorative materials in permanent teeth.Methods Searches in PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, Ovid and Cochrane Library were conducted. Grey literature search was also performed. Clinical trials that evaluated the clinical performance of restorations with GIOMER restorative composites in permanent teeth compared to those using composite resin, glass ionomer cement, resin-modified glass ionomer cement (RMGIC) and other GIOMERs were included. Meta-analyses comparing GIOMER restorative composites with RMGIC at 6- and 12-month follow-ups and comparing two types of GIOMER were feasible.Results Ten studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria. In these studies, GIOMER was compared to different types of dental restoration materials. Dental restorations were evaluated by United States Public Health Service criteria in all included studies. Four studies were suitable for meta-analysis, which showed significant differences between GIOMER and RMGIC surface roughness at 6-month (odds ratio [OR] = 6.56; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 2.38-18.13) and 12-month (OR = 8.76; CI = 3.19-24.07) follow-ups. No significant differences between GIOMER restorative composites and RMGIC for marginal adaptation were found at 6- and 12-month follow-ups. When comparing two GIOMERs, significant differences were seen between Beautifil II and Beautifil Flowable Plus F00 for marginal staining (OR = 2.58; CI = 1.42-23.27; I = 0%) and surface roughness (OR = 4.59; CI = 1.11-18.97; I = 0%) at the 36-month follow-up. No significant differences between Beautifil II and Beautifil Flowable Plus F00 were seen for marginal adaptation and anatomic form at 6-, 18- and 36-month follow-ups.Conclusions GIOMER restorative composites presented similar performance concerning marginal adaptation and better surface roughness when compared to RMGIC. GIOMER Beautifil II presented similar performance to GIOMER Beautifil Flow Plus F00 concerning marginal adaptation and anatomic form and worse marginal staining and surface roughness when compared to Beautifil Flowable Plus F00.
PubMed: 35915167
DOI: 10.1038/s41432-022-0281-8