-
The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry Feb 2023The use of bioinformatic strategies is growing in dental implant protocols. The current expansion of Omics sciences and artificial intelligence (AI) algorithms in... (Review)
Review
STATEMENT OF PROBLEM
The use of bioinformatic strategies is growing in dental implant protocols. The current expansion of Omics sciences and artificial intelligence (AI) algorithms in implant dentistry applications have not been documented and analyzed as a predictive tool for the success of dental implants.
PURPOSE
The purpose of this scoping review was to analyze how artificial intelligence algorithms and Omics technologies are being applied in the field of oral implantology as a predictive tool for dental implant success.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews checklist was followed. A search strategy was created at PubMed and Web of Science to answer the question "How is bioinformatics being applied in the area of oral implantology as a predictive tool for implant success?"
RESULTS
Thirteen articles were included in this review. Only 3 applied bioinformatic models combining AI algorithms and Omics technologies. These studies highlighted 2 key points for the creation of precision medicine: deep population phenotyping and the integration of Omics sciences in clinical protocols. Most of the studies identified applied AI only in the identification and classification of implant systems, quantification of peri-implant bone loss, and 3-dimensional bone analysis, planning implant placement.
CONCLUSIONS
The conventional criteria currently used as a technique for the diagnosis and monitoring of dental implants are insufficient and have low accuracy. Models that apply AI algorithms combined with precision methodologies-biomarkers-are extremely useful in the creation of precision medicine, allowing medical dentists to forecast the success of the implant. Tools that integrate the different types of data, including imaging, molecular, risk factor, and implant characteristics, are needed to make a more accurate and personalized prediction of implant success.
Topics: Dental Implants; Artificial Intelligence; Dental Restoration Failure; Dental Implantation, Endosseous; Algorithms
PubMed: 36710172
DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2022.12.011 -
Clinical Oral Implants Research Sep 2023In patients with dental implants, what is the effect of transmucosal components made of materials other than titanium (alloys) compared to titanium (alloys) on the... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVES
In patients with dental implants, what is the effect of transmucosal components made of materials other than titanium (alloys) compared to titanium (alloys) on the surrounding peri-implant tissues after at least 1 year?
MATERIALS AND METHODS
This systematic review included eligible randomized controlled trials identified through an electronic search (Medline, Embase and Web of Science) comparing alternative abutment materials versus titanium (alloy) abutments with a minimum follow-up of 1 year and including at least 10 patients/group. Primary outcomes were peri-implant marginal bone level (MBL) and probing depth (PD), these were evaluated based on meta-analyses. Abutment survival, biological and technical complications and aesthetic outcomes were the secondary outcomes. The risk of bias was assessed with the RoB2-tool. This review is registered in PROSPERO with the number (CRD42022376487).
RESULTS
From 5129 titles, 580 abstracts were selected, and 111 full-text articles were screened. Finally, 12 articles could be included. Concerning the primary outcomes (MBL and PD), no differences could be seen between titanium abutment and zirconia or alumina abutments, not after 1 year (MBL: zirconia: MD = -0.24, 95% CI: -0.65 to 0.16, alumina: MD = -0.06, 95% CI: -0.29 to 0.17) (PD: zirconia: MD = -0.06, 95% CI: -0.41 to 0.30, alumina: MD = -0.29, 95% CI: -0.96 to 0.38), nor after 5 years. Additionally, no differences were found concerning the biological complications and aesthetic outcomes. The most important technical finding was abutment fracture in the ceramic group and chipping of the veneering material.
CONCLUSIONS
Biologically, titanium and zirconia abutments seem to function equally up to 5 years after placement.
Topics: Humans; Titanium; Dental Implants; Alloys; Aluminum Oxide
PubMed: 37750527
DOI: 10.1111/clr.14159 -
Clinical Oral Investigations Dec 2023To assess the clinical outcomes of zirconia dental implants based on an updated systematic literature review. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
PURPOSE
To assess the clinical outcomes of zirconia dental implants based on an updated systematic literature review.
METHODS
An electronic search was performed in three databases, last updated in June 2023, supplemented by hand searching. The eligibility criteria were clinical studies reporting patients rehabilitated with zirconia implants. The cumulative survival rate (CSR) of implants was calculated. A meta-analysis for marginal bone loss (MBL) under different follow-up times and a meta-regression assessing the relationship between mean MBL and follow-up were done.
RESULTS
Twenty-five studies were included (4017 implants, 2083 patients). Seven studies had follow-up longer than 60 months. 172 implants failed, after a mean of 12.0 ± 16.1 months (min-max 0.3-86.0), of which 47 early failures, and 26 due to implant fracture, the majority in narrow-diameter implants. The 10-year CSR was 95.1%. Implants with coronal part prepared by drills presented statistically significant lower survival than non-prepared implants (p < 0.001). Two-piece implants presented lower survival than one-piece implants (p = 0.017). Implants discontinued from the market presented lower survival than the commercially available ones (p < 0.001). The difference in survival was not significant between implants in maxilla and mandible (p = 0.637). The mean MBL fluctuated between 0.632 and 2.060 mm over long periods of observation (up until 132 months). There was an estimated MBL increase of 0.005 mm per additional month of follow-up.
CONCLUSION
Zirconia implants present high 10-year CSR and short-term low MBL. The review was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42022342055).
CLINICAL RELEVANCE
The clinical outcomes observed for zirconia dental implants are very promising, although these have not yet been extensively studied as titanium alloy implants.
Topics: Humans; Dental Implants; Treatment Outcome; Dental Restoration Failure; Zirconium; Titanium; Dental Prosthesis Design
PubMed: 38135804
DOI: 10.1007/s00784-023-05401-8 -
Clinical Oral Investigations Sep 2023The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to assess the comparative clinical success and survival of intracoronal indirect restorations using gold, lithium... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVES
The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to assess the comparative clinical success and survival of intracoronal indirect restorations using gold, lithium disilicate, leucite, and indirect composite materials.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
This systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted following the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions and PRISMA guidelines. The protocol for this study was registered in PROSPERO (registration number: CRD42021233185). A comprehensive literature search was conducted across various databases and sources, including PubMed/Medline, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, ClinicalTrials.gov, and gray literature. A total of 7826 articles were screened on title and abstract. Articles were not excluded based on the vitality of teeth, the language of the study, or the observation period. The risk difference was utilized for the analyses, and a random-effects model was applied. All analyses were conducted with a 95% confidence interval (95% CI). The calculated risk differences were derived from the combined data on restoration survival and failures obtained from each individual article. The presence of heterogeneity was assessed using the I statistic, and if present, the heterogeneity of the data in the articles was evaluated using the non-parametric chi-squared statistic (p < 0.05).
RESULTS
A total of 12 eligible studies were selected, which included 946 restorations evaluated over a minimum observation period of 1 year and a maximum observation period of 7 years. Results of the meta-analysis indicated that intracoronal indirect resin composite restorations have an 18% higher rate of failure when compared to intracoronal gold restorations over 5-7 years of clinical service (risk difference = - 0.18 [95% CI: - 0.27, - 0.09]; p = .0002; I = 0%). The meta-analysis examining the disparity in survival rates between intracoronal gold and leucite restorations could not be carried out due to methodological differences in the studies.
CONCLUSIONS
According to the currently available evidence, medium-quality data indicates that lithium disilicate and indirect composite materials demonstrate comparable survival rates in short-term follow-up. Furthermore, intracoronal gold restorations showed significantly higher survival rates, making them a preferred option over intracoronal indirect resin-composite restorations. Besides that, the analysis revealed no statistically significant difference in survival rates between leucite and indirect composite restorations. The short observation period, limited number of eligible articles, and low sample size of the included studies were significant limitations.
CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE
Bearing in mind the limitations of the reviewed literature, this systematic review and meta-analysis help clinicians make evidence-based decisions on how to restore biomechanically compromised posterior teeth.
Topics: Dental Porcelain; Aluminum Silicates; Composite Resins; Gold
PubMed: 37597003
DOI: 10.1007/s00784-023-05050-x -
Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) Dec 2021: Preliminary studies emphasize the similar performance of autogenous bone blocks (AUBBs) and allogeneic bone blocks (ALBBs) in pre-implant surgery; however, most of... (Review)
Review
: Preliminary studies emphasize the similar performance of autogenous bone blocks (AUBBs) and allogeneic bone blocks (ALBBs) in pre-implant surgery; however, most of these studies include limited subjects or hold a low level of evidence. The purpose of this review is to test the hypothesis of indifferent implant survival rates (ISRs) in AUBB and ALBB and determine the impact of various material-, surgery- and patient-related confounders and predictors. : The national library of medicine (MEDLINE), Excerpta Medica database (EMBASE) and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) were screened for studies reporting the ISRs of implants placed in AUBB and ALBB with ≥10 participants followed for ≥12 months from January 1995 to November 2021. The review was conducted in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. The risk of bias was assessed via several scoring tools, dependent on the study design. Means of sub-entities were presented as violin plots. : An electronic data search resulted in the identification of 9233 articles, of which 100 were included in the quantitative analysis. No significant difference ( 0.54) was found between the ISR of AUBB (96.23 ± 5.27%; range: 75% to 100%; 2195 subjects, 6861 implants) and that of ALBB (97.66 ± 2.68%; range: 90.1% to 100%; 1202 subjects, 3434 implants). The ISR in AUBB was increased in blocks from intraoral as compared to extraoral donor sites ( 0.0003), partially edentulous as compared to totally edentulous ( 0.0002), as well as in patients younger than 45 as compared to those older ( 0.044), cortical as compared to cortico-cancellous blocks ( 0.005) and in delayed implantations within three months as compared to immediate implantations ( 0.018). The ISR of ALBB was significantly increased in processed as compared to fresh-frozen ALBB ( 0.004), but also in horizontal as compared to vertical augmentations ( 0.009). : The present findings widely emphasize the feasibility of achieving similar ISRs with AUBB and ALBB applied for pre-implant bone grafting. ISRs were negatively affected in sub-entities linked to more extensive augmentation procedures such as bone donor site and dentition status. The inclusion and pooling of literature with a low level of evidence, the absence of randomized controlled clinical trials (RCTs) comparing AUBB and ALBB and the limited count of comparative studies with short follow-ups increases the risk of bias and complicates data interpretation. Consequently, further long-term comparative studies are needed.
Topics: Bone Transplantation; Dental Implants; Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation; Humans; Mouth, Edentulous; Survival Rate; United States
PubMed: 34946333
DOI: 10.3390/medicina57121388 -
Clinical Oral Investigations Jun 2023This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to compare the dental implant survival rate and marginal bone loss between patients with and without osteoporosis. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Do dental implants placed in patients with osteoporosis have higher risks of failure and marginal bone loss compared to those in healthy patients? A systematic review with meta-analysis.
PURPOSE
This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to compare the dental implant survival rate and marginal bone loss between patients with and without osteoporosis.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
This systematic review was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42022356377). A systematic search was performed using five databases: MEDLINE/PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, Embase, and ProQuest for articles published up to July 2022. Additional searches in ClinicalTrials.gov and the reference lists of included studies were performed. The eligibility criteria comprised observational studies with a direct comparison between patients with and without osteoporosis, with a minimum follow-up of 1 year and 10 implants placed in each group, which consider data analysis based on implant level, without restrictions on period or language of publication. The meta-analysis was performed using RevMan 5.4 program. Risk of bias analysis of the included studies was performed using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale (NOS).
RESULTS
Twelve studies met the eligibility criteria, totaling 1132 patients with a mean age range from 54 to 76.6 years. Most of the included patients were women (73.6%). A total of 3505 implants were evaluated-983 in patients with osteoporosis and 2522 in patients without osteoporosis. The meta-analysis indicated no difference in implant survival rates between patients with and without osteoporosis (OR, 1.78; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.86-3.70; P = 0.12). However, significant bone loss was observed around dental implants placed in patients with osteoporosis (SMD, 0.71 mm; 95% CI, 0.06-0.87 mm). The NOS indicated a low risk of bias in the studies included. However, the certainty of the evidence was classified as very low and low for implant survival rates and bone loss, respectively.
CONCLUSION
According to the limitations of the present review, the data suggest that dental implants are a viable treatment option for the rehabilitation of patients with osteoporosis. However, clinical care by professionals is necessary to ensure the maintenance of peri-implant bone stability, as these patients may be susceptible to increased bone loss.
Topics: Humans; Female; Middle Aged; Aged; Male; Dental Implants; Dental Implantation, Endosseous; Dental Restoration Failure; Osteoporosis
PubMed: 37043030
DOI: 10.1007/s00784-023-05005-2 -
The Journal of Evidence-based Dental... Sep 2019The aim of the present systematic review was to evaluate if epoxy resin-based root canal sealers present superior push-out bond strength compared to calcium... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVES
The aim of the present systematic review was to evaluate if epoxy resin-based root canal sealers present superior push-out bond strength compared to calcium silicate-based root canal sealers.
METHODS
The inclusion criteria consisted of in vitro studies that compared the push-out bond strength of epoxy resin-based and calcium silicate-based sealers. A systematic search was performed in the following databases for articles published until February 2018: PubMed, ScienceDirect, Scopus, Web of Science, and OpenGrey. The quality assessment and data extraction of the selected articles were performed. A meta-analysis of the pooled data and the subgroups according to the root thirds was carried out using the RevMan software (P < .05).
RESULTS
The search resulted in 2292 studies. After the duplicate studies were removed and the title and abstract were read, 20 studies were selected and 17 were considered as having a low risk of bias. The pooled meta-analysis comparing epoxy resin-based (n = 467) and paste-to-paste calcium silicate-based root canal sealers (n = 467) demonstrated higher mean push-out bond strength values (P < .001) for the epoxy resin-based root canal sealers; the heterogeneity among studies was 85% (I). The comparisons between epoxy resin-based (n = 358) and premixed ready-to-use calcium silicate-based root canal sealers (n = 358) also demonstrated a significant difference between the sealers (P < .05), with an I of 95%. The subgroup analysis showed that only in the middle third, were increased bond strength values for epoxy resin-based sealer observed (P < .001), with an I of 94%.
CONCLUSIONS
The epoxy resin-based sealer demonstratedhigher push-out bond strength than paste-to-paste calcium silicate-based root canal sealer regardless of the root third assessed. In addition, the epoxy resin-based sealer exhibited increased push-out bond strength in comparison with premixed ready-to-use calcium silicate-based root canal sealer when evaluating the middle third.
Topics: Calcium Compounds; Dental Bonding; Dentin; Epoxy Resins; Humans; Materials Testing; Root Canal Filling Materials
PubMed: 31732099
DOI: 10.1016/j.jebdp.2019.04.004 -
Evidence-based Dentistry Jun 2022Data sources PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature, Brazilian Bibliography in Dentistry and Cochrane Library. The grey... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Data sources PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature, Brazilian Bibliography in Dentistry and Cochrane Library. The grey literature was searched using the System for Information on Grey Literature in Europe database. Abstracts from the Annual Session of the International Association for Dental Research and its regional subgroups (1990-2020) were searched. Theses and dissertations (full texts) were searched in the ProQuest and Capes databases. Unpublished and ongoing studies were searched in clinical trial databases (Current Controlled Trials, International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, ClinicalTrials.gov, Registro Brasileiro de Ensaios Clínicos and EU Clinical Trials Register).Study selection In total, 14 randomised clinical trials comparing the clinical performance of composite resin restorations in posterior teeth placed with the incremental or the bulk-filling techniques were evaluated.Data extraction and synthesis Relevant information on the research project, participants, interventions and outcomes was collected using extraction forms by three study authors. Data extraction was pilot-tested using a sample of four studies to ensure that the data were consistent with the specific research question. To avoid overlapping, multiple reports of the same study with different follow-ups were extracted into a single form.Results Considering the primary and secondary outcomes (retention/fracture rate, anatomical form, surface texture, colour match, marginal adaption, marginal discoloration, caries and postoperative sensitivity), it is possible to state that there was no difference between incremental or bulk fill resin composite techniques in Class II and I cavities.Conclusions A systematic review and meta-analysis with moderated quality of evidence bulk fill and incremental techniques showed similar clinical performance on posterior resin composite restorations.
Topics: Brazil; Caribbean Region; Composite Resins; Databases, Factual; Dental Caries; Dental Restoration, Permanent; Humans
PubMed: 35750739
DOI: 10.1038/s41432-022-0264-9 -
Journal of Esthetic and Restorative... Dec 2023The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate the influence of the characteristics of intraoral scan bodies (ISBs) on the accuracy of intraoral scanning. (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVE
The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate the influence of the characteristics of intraoral scan bodies (ISBs) on the accuracy of intraoral scanning.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
An electronic search was conducted through PubMed (MEDLINE), Scopus and Cochrane Library, up to March 2023. The literature search intended to retrieve all relevant clinical and in vitro studies about the effect that the various properties of ISBs may have on the accuracy (trueness and precision) of intraoral scanning. Only publications in English language were selected with animal studies, case reports, case series, technique presentation articles and expert opinions being excluded.
RESULTS
A total of 28 studies met the inclusion criteria and were included in this systematic review. They were published between 2019 and 2023 and were all in vitro studies. Among the parameters described, the scan body material, position, geometry, height, diameter, and fixation torque were evaluated. The most common materials used for ISBs were polyetheretherketone (PEEK) and titanium alloys. The diameter and position of ISBs seemed to affect the trueness of implant impressions. Subgingival implant position and decreased ISB height affected negatively the trueness of scanning. Geometrical characteristics of ISBs also affect the implant impression accuracy, especially the bevel location and the types of designing modifications.
CONCLUSIONS
The characteristics of the currently used ISBs vary widely and the available scientific evidence is not yet conclusive about the optimal design of ISB. The implant impression accuracy achieved by any of the studied parameters is encouraging. Clinical studies are however necessary for more concrete conclusions.
CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE
ISBs play a vital role in the digital workflow and influence significantly the accuracy and fit of implant restorations. More clinical trials are needed in order to conclude to the optimal characteristics of ISBs which would further enhance the success of the restorations.
Topics: Dental Implants; Dental Impression Technique; Computer-Aided Design; Research Design; Imaging, Three-Dimensional
PubMed: 37381677
DOI: 10.1111/jerd.13074 -
The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry Oct 2022Although recent studies have reported the success of implant-supported monolithic restorations, consensus on the use of monolithic ceramic restorations is lacking. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
STATEMENT OF PROBLEM
Although recent studies have reported the success of implant-supported monolithic restorations, consensus on the use of monolithic ceramic restorations is lacking.
PURPOSE
The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate the survival and biological and technical complication rates of monolithic single crowns and fixed partial dentures (FPDs).
MATERIAL AND METHODS
An electronic search was conducted by 2 independent authors on the PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, and Cochrane Library databases. The Newcastle-Ottawa scale and Cochrane risk of bias tool were used to assess the quality and risk of bias of the included studies. Meta-analysis was performed by using the R software program.
RESULTS
The search identified 763 articles, 18 of which met the eligibility criteria. A total of 15 studies evaluated monolithic ceramic single crowns, and 4 studies evaluated FPDs. The studies included 1061 monolithic single crowns (524 lithium disilicate, 461 zirconia, and 76 polymer-infiltrated ceramic network [PICN]) and 104 FPDs (36 lithium disilicate and 68 zirconia). Meta-analysis of single-arm studies indicated the proportion of survival, biological, and technical complication rates of 1% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0% to 3%), 1% (CI: 0% to 4%), and 2% (CI: 1% to 4%), respectively, for single crowns, independent of ceramic material, and 3% (CI: 0% to 34%), 5% (CI: 1% to 21%), and 5% (CI: 1% to 21%) for FPDs, respectively. Only 5 studies performed a direct comparison between monolithic and veneered ceramic restorations, and no significant difference was observed in terms of survival (risk ratio [RR]: 0.68; CI: 0.25-1.91; P=.96), biological (RR: 0.69; CI: 0.31-1.53; P=.35), and technical complication rates (RR: 0.87; CI: 0.40-1.88; P=.29).
CONCLUSIONS
The use of monolithic ceramic can be considered a favorable treatment for tooth-supported single crowns and FPDs, with high survival and low complication rates. However, further randomized controlled trials are needed to reassess these clinical performances, mainly by comparing them with the performance of veneered restorations.
Topics: Dental Restoration Failure; Dental Prosthesis Design; Zirconium; Dental Porcelain; Ceramics; Crowns; Dental Prosthesis, Implant-Supported
PubMed: 33745685
DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2021.01.020