-
Frontiers in Bioengineering and... 2021Systematic review assessing the association between oral microorganisms and corrosion of intra-oral metallic alloy-based dental appliances. PubMed, Scopus, and Web of...
Systematic review assessing the association between oral microorganisms and corrosion of intra-oral metallic alloy-based dental appliances. PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science were searched using keyword combinations such as microbes and oral and corrosion; microbes and dental and corrosion; microorganisms and oral and corrosion; microorganisms and dental and corrosion. Out of 141 articles, only 25 satisfied the selection criteria. s, sulfate-reducing bacteria, sulfate oxidizing bacteria, Veilonella, Actinomyces, were found to have a potential association with corrosion of intraoral metallic alloys such as stainless steel, titanium, nickel, cobalt-chromium, neodymium-iron-boron magnets, zirconia, amalgam, copper aluminum, and precious metal alloys. The included studies inferred an association between oral microorganisms and intra-oral metallic alloys-based dental appliances, although, it is vital to acknowledge that most studies in the review employed an simulation of the intra-oral condition.
PubMed: 33791285
DOI: 10.3389/fbioe.2021.631103 -
Journal of Prosthodontics : Official... Aug 2009The aim of this systematic review was to determine which dowel (post) and core system is the most successful when used in vivo to restore endodontically treated teeth. (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Review
PURPOSE
The aim of this systematic review was to determine which dowel (post) and core system is the most successful when used in vivo to restore endodontically treated teeth.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
A MEDLINE, a Cochrane, and an EMBASE search (three specified searches) were conducted to identify randomized (RCT) and nonrandomized controlled clinical trials (CCT), cohort (CS), and case control studies (CCS) until January 2008, conducted on humans, and published in English, German, and French, relating to dowel and core systems for restoring endodontically treated teeth. Also, a hand search was conducted, along with contact with the authors when needed.
RESULTS
The MEDLINE, Cochrane, and EMBASE searches identified 997, 141, and 25 published articles, respectively. Ten articles from the MEDLINE and seven articles from the Cochrane search (that were also identified in the MEDLINE search) met the inclusion and validity assessment criteria. Six out of the ten studies were RCTs, two were CCTs, and two CSs. The RCT studies suggest that carbon fiber in resin matrix dowels are significantly better than precious alloy cast dowels (number needed to treat, NNT = 8.30). Tapered gold alloy cast dowels are better than ParaPost gold alloy cast dowels (NNT = 13.15). ParaPost prefabricated dowels are slightly better than ParaPost cast dowels (NNT = 175.4). Glass fiber dowels are significantly better than metal screw dowels (NNT = 5.46), but worse than titanium (NNT =-21.73) (moderately). Carbon fiber dowels are worse than gold alloy cast dowels (significantly) (NNT =-5.81) and than amalgam dowels (NNT =-125) (slightly). The CCT studies suggest that metal dowels are better (NNT = 21.73) but also worse than cast dowels (NNT =-33.33) depending on the remaining amount of coronal hard tissue. Quartz fiber dowels show success rates similar to and worse than glass fiber-reinforced dowels (NNT =-37.03). The results from the CS studies suggest that carbon fiber in resin matrix dowels are better (moderately) than carbon fiber + quartz and quartz fiber dowels. Titanium dowels with a composite build-up are better (moderately) than gold alloy cast dowels.
CONCLUSIONS
According to the studies of the highest levels of evidence, carbon fiber in resin matrix dowels are significantly better than precious alloy cast dowels (RCT). Glass fiber dowels are significantly better than metal screw dowels (RCT) and moderately better than quartz fiber dowels (CCT). Carbon fiber dowels are significantly worse than metal dowels (of precious alloy) (RCT). Prefabricated metal dowels are slightly better than cast dowels (RCT), but moderately worse when no collar of the dentin above the gingiva could be achieved (CCT).
Topics: Carbon; Carbon Fiber; Composite Resins; Dental Alloys; Esthetics, Dental; Evidence-Based Dentistry; Glass Ionomer Cements; Humans; Outcome Assessment, Health Care; Post and Core Technique; Root Canal Filling Materials; Root Canal Therapy
PubMed: 19500237
DOI: 10.1111/j.1532-849X.2009.00472.x -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Mar 2016Dental caries (tooth decay) is one of the commonest diseases which afflicts mankind, and has been estimated to affect up to 80% of people in high-income countries.... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Dental caries (tooth decay) is one of the commonest diseases which afflicts mankind, and has been estimated to affect up to 80% of people in high-income countries. Caries adversely affects and progressively destroys the tissues of the tooth, including the dental pulp (nerve), leaving teeth unsightly, weakened and with impaired function. The treatment of lesions of dental caries, which are progressing through dentine and have caused the formation of a cavity, involves the provision of dental restorations (fillings). This review updates the previous version published in 2009.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of adhesive bonding on the in-service performance and longevity of dental amalgam restorations.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Oral Health Group Trials Register (to 21 January 2016), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2015, Issue 12), MEDLINE via Ovid (1946 to 21 January 2016) and EMBASE via Ovid (1980 to 21 January 2016). We also searched the US National Institutes of Health Trials Registry (http://clinicaltrials.gov) and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (www.who.int/ictrp/search/en) (both to 21 January 2016) for ongoing trials. No restrictions were placed on the language or date of publication when searching the electronic databases.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials comparing adhesively bonded versus traditional non-bonded amalgam restorations in conventional preparations utilising deliberate retention, in adults with permanent molar and premolar teeth suitable for Class I and II amalgam restorations only.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently screened papers, extracted trial details and assessed the risk of bias in the included study.
MAIN RESULTS
One trial with 31 patients who received 113 restorations was included. At two years, 50 out of 53 restorations in the non-bonded group survived, and 55 of 60 bonded restorations survived with five unaccounted for at follow-up. Post-insertion sensitivity was not significantly different (P > 0.05) at baseline or two-year follow-up. No fractures of tooth tissue were reported and there was no significant difference between the groups or matched pairs of restorations in their marginal adaptation (P > 0.05).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is no evidence to either claim or refute a difference in survival between bonded and non-bonded amalgam restorations. This review only found one under-reported trial. This trial did not find any significant difference in the in-service performance of moderately sized adhesively bonded amalgam restorations, in terms of their survival rate and marginal integrity, in comparison to non-bonded amalgam restorations over a two-year period. In view of the lack of evidence on the additional benefit of adhesively bonding amalgam in comparison with non-bonded amalgam, it is important that clinicians are mindful of the additional costs that may be incurred.
Topics: Adult; Dental Amalgam; Dental Bonding; Dental Caries; Dental Restoration Failure; Dental Restoration, Permanent; Humans
PubMed: 26954446
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD007517.pub3 -
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 -
BMC Oral Health Jun 2023This systematic review and network meta-analysis aimed to compare the clinical efficacy of bioactive and conventional restorative materials in controlling secondary... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
This systematic review and network meta-analysis aimed to compare the clinical efficacy of bioactive and conventional restorative materials in controlling secondary caries (SC) and to provide a classification of these materials according to their effectiveness.
METHODS
A search was performed in Pubmed, Web of Science, Embase, BBO, Lilacs, Cochrane Library, Scopus, IBECS and gray literature. Clinical trials were included, with no language or publication date limitations. Paired and network meta-analyses were performed with random-effects models, comparing treatments of interest and classifying them according to effectiveness in the permanent and deciduous dentition and at 1-year or 2/more years of follow-up. The risk of bias and certainty of evidence were evaluated.
RESULTS
Sixty-two studies were included in the qualitative syntheses and 39 in the quantitative ones. In permanent teeth, resin composite (RC) (RR = 2.00; 95%CI = 1.10, 3.64) and amalgam (AAG) (RR = 1.79; 95%CI = 1.04, 3.09) showed a higher risk of SC than Glass Ionomer Cement (GIC). In the deciduous teeth, however, a higher risk of SC was observed with RC than with AAG (RR = 2.46; 95%CI = 1.42, 4.27) and in GIC when compared to Resin-Modified Glass Ionomer Cement (RMGIC = 1.79; 95%CI = 1.04, 3.09). Most randomized clinical trials studies showed low or moderate risk of bias.
CONCLUSION
There is a difference between bioactive restorative materials for SC control, with GIC being more effective in the permanent teeth and the RMGIC in the deciduous teeth. Bioactive restorative materials can be adjuvants in the control of SC in patients at high risk for caries.
Topics: Humans; Network Meta-Analysis; Dental Caries Susceptibility; Dental Materials; Dental Caries; Composite Resins; Treatment Outcome; Glass Ionomer Cements; Dental Restoration, Permanent
PubMed: 37322456
DOI: 10.1186/s12903-023-03110-y -
Brazilian Oral Research Mar 2018This study aimed to compare the longevity of different conventional restorative materials placed in posterior primary teeth. This systematic review was conducted... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis Review
This study aimed to compare the longevity of different conventional restorative materials placed in posterior primary teeth. This systematic review was conducted following the PRISMA statement and registered in PROSPERO (CRD42016035775). A comprehensive electronic search without date or language restrictions was performed in PubMed/MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Scopus, Turning Research Into Practice (TRIP) and Clinical Trials databases up to January 2017, selecting randomized clinical trials that assessed the longevity of at least two different conventional restorative materials performed in primary molars. Seventeen studies were included in this systematic review. Pairwise and network meta-analyses were performed and relative risks and 95% confidence intervals (CI) calculated. Two reviewers independently selected the studies, extracted the data, and assessed the risk of bias. Restorations of primary molars with conventional glass ionomer cement showed increased risk of failure than compomer, resin-modified glass ionomer cement, amalgam, and composite resin. Risk of bias was low in most studies (45.38% of all items across studies). Pediatric dentists should avoid conventional glass ionomer cement for restoring primary molars.
Topics: Dental Caries; Dental Materials; Dental Restoration Failure; Dental Restoration, Permanent; Humans; Network Meta-Analysis; Publication Bias; Risk Assessment; Tooth, Deciduous; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 29513886
DOI: 10.1590/1807-3107bor-2018.vol32.0010 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Oct 2009Dental caries (tooth decay) is one of the commonest diseases which afflicts mankind, and has been estimated to affect up to 80% of people in high-income countries.... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Dental caries (tooth decay) is one of the commonest diseases which afflicts mankind, and has been estimated to affect up to 80% of people in high-income countries. Caries adversely affects and progressively destroys the tissues of the tooth, including the dental pulp (nerve), leaving teeth unsightly, weakened and with impaired function. The treatment of lesions of dental caries, which are progressing through dentine and have caused the formation of a cavity, involves the provision of dental restorations (fillings).
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of adhesive bonding on the in-service performance and longevity of restorations of dental amalgam.
SEARCH STRATEGY
Databases searched July 2009: the Cochrane Oral Health Group's Trials Register; CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library 2009, Issue 3); MEDLINE (1950 to July 2009); and EMBASE (1980 to July 2009).
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials comparing adhesively bonded versus traditional non-bonded amalgam restorations in conventional preparations utilising deliberate retention, in adults with permanent molar and premolar teeth suitable for Class I and II amalgam restorations only.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently screened papers, extracted trial details and assessed the risk of bias in the included study.
MAIN RESULTS
One trial with 31 patients who received 113 restorations was included. At 2 years only 3 out of 53 restorations in the non-bonded group were lost, which was attributed to a lack of retention, and 55 of 60 bonded restorations survived with five unaccounted for at follow-up. Post-insertion sensitivity was not significantly different (P > 0.05) at baseline or 2-year follow-up. No fractures of tooth tissue were reported and there was no significant difference between the groups or matched pairs of restorations in their marginal adaptation (P > 0.05).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is no evidence to either claim or refute a difference in survival between bonded and non-bonded amalgam restorations. This review only found one methodologically sound but somewhat under-reported trial. This trial did not find any significant difference in the in-service performance of moderately sized adhesively bonded amalgam restorations, in terms of their survival rate and marginal integrity, in comparison to non-bonded amalgam restorations over a 2-year period. In view of the lack of evidence on the additional benefit of adhesively bonding amalgam in comparison with non-bonded amalgam, it is important that clinicians are mindful of the additional costs that may be incurred.
Topics: Adult; Dental Amalgam; Dental Bonding; Dental Caries; Dental Restoration Failure; Dental Restoration, Permanent; Humans
PubMed: 19821423
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD007517.pub2 -
Clinical Oral Implants Research Jun 2007All dental biomaterials release substances into the oral environment to a varying degree. Various preclinical biocompatibility test systems have been introduced, aiming... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVES
All dental biomaterials release substances into the oral environment to a varying degree. Various preclinical biocompatibility test systems have been introduced, aiming at an evaluation of the potential risks of dental materials. Potential pathogenic effects of released substances from dental materials have been demonstrated. For the biocompatibility of a biomaterial, it is not only important that minimal diffusable substances are released when it is in body contact--the material must also fulfill the function for which it has been designed. This is also very much dependent on the material properties and its handling properties. The aim of this review was to generate an overview of the present status concerning adverse reactions among patients and personnel.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
A systematic review was performed using a defined search strategy in order to evaluate all MEDLINE-literature published between 1996 and 2006.
RESULTS
The compilation of the literature available has revealed that the majority of studies have been carried out on patients compared with personnel. Adverse reactions towards dental materials do occur, but the prevalence and incidence are difficult to obtain. The results were essentially based on cohort studies. Clinical trials, especially randomized-controlled trials, are in the minority of all studies investigated, with the exception of composite and bonding studies, where clinical trials, but not randomized-controlled trials, represent the majority of studies. Patients and personnel were treated separately in the manuscript. Amalgam studies show the lowest degree of verified material-related diagnosis. Even if objective symptoms related to adverse reactions with polymer resin-based materials have been reported, postoperative sensitivity dominates reports concerning composites/bondings. Verified occupational effects among dental personnel show a low frequency of allergy/toxic reactions. Irritative hand eczema seemed to be more common than in the general population.
CONCLUSIONS
Patient- and personnel-related studies are of variable quality and can be improved. There is a need for a better description of the content of materials. A registry for adverse effects of dental materials would be useful to detect the occurrence of low-incidence events.
Topics: Biocompatible Materials; Dental Materials; Dentistry; Humans; Hypersensitivity; Mouth Diseases; Occupational Diseases; Workforce
PubMed: 17594385
DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2007.01481.x -
Supportive Care in Cancer : Official... May 2024This study is to conduct a comprehensive scoping review to map scientific evidence and clarify concepts regarding the commonly recommended preventive and restorative... (Review)
Review
PURPOSE
This study is to conduct a comprehensive scoping review to map scientific evidence and clarify concepts regarding the commonly recommended preventive and restorative dental treatments for patients diagnosed with head and neck cancer (HNC) and subjected to radiotherapy.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
This systematic scoping review was performed under the PRISMA-ScR guidelines. The study's experimental design was registered in the Open Science Framework. In vitro studies that evaluated preventive and restorative dental treatment over 50 Gy radiation doses were included. The search was conducted in November 2023 in five electronic databases (PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and Embase) without language or date restriction. A search strategy was applied based on keywords, MeSh terms, or synonyms. A descriptive analysis was conducted.
RESULTS
A total of 49 studies, out of 3679 original articles identified, were included and reviewed. Of the included studies, three evaluated saliva stimulants and 35 evaluated fluoride-based preventive materials: gel (n = 18) toothpaste (n = 11) mouth rinse (n = 8) and varnish (n = 5) while 14 evaluated restorative materials: resin composite (n = 12) glass ionomer cement (n = 6) and amalgam (n = 1) Of those studies, 36 were clinical trials and 13 were in vitro studies.
CONCLUSION
Fluoride gel was the most frequently recommended preventive material for preventing radiation caries with supportive clinical evidence. Resin composite and glass ionomer were the most frequently used restorative materials, respectively. However, there is not yet clinical evidence to support the use of resin composite in irradiated teeth.
Topics: Humans; Dental Caries; Head and Neck Neoplasms; Dental Restoration, Permanent
PubMed: 38702458
DOI: 10.1007/s00520-024-08522-2 -
Journal of Environmental Health Science... Dec 2020Exposure to mercury is an important risk to dentists health. The aim of the present study was to assess the pooled mean mercury level (MML) in the urine, blood, nail,... (Review)
Review
Exposure to mercury is an important risk to dentists health. The aim of the present study was to assess the pooled mean mercury level (MML) in the urine, blood, nail, and hair of Iranian dentists (IDs) through the meta-analysis technique. Comprehensive and systematic searches were performed in main local databases including SID, Magiran, Iran medex, and ISC as well as internationally available databases including Embase, PubMed and Scopus for all the relevant studies up to 2018. In order to prevent bias in this study and identify eligible studies, various steps of the study was performed independently by two researchers. Out of 13 studies in the meta-analysis process which included 1499 IDs, the mean of the mercury level in the urine, nail, and blood was estimated to be 6.29 (95% CI: 2.61-9.97, I-square: 62.7%, P: 0.006), 3.54 (95% CI: 2.81-4.28, I-square: 0.0%, P: 0.968), 11.20 (95% CI: 2.28-20.13, I-square: 59.9%, P: 0.082), respectively. The mean mercury level (MML) in the biological samples of IDs was higher than the standard of World Health Organization (WHO). So, in accordance with Article 10 of the European Union Regulations (EUR), in the context of the Minamata Convention (MC) on Dental Amalgam (DA), in order to avoid the dangers of mercury exposure in dentists, it is necessary for Iran and other countries to approve laws and to implement a national plan to reduce mercury levels and replace the appropriate materials.
PubMed: 33312669
DOI: 10.1007/s40201-020-00558-w