-
Journal of the American Dental... Mar 2000The authors evaluated the treatment efficacy of preformed metal crowns, or PMCs, vs. amalgam restorations in primary molars by means of a literature review and... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Review
BACKGROUND
The authors evaluated the treatment efficacy of preformed metal crowns, or PMCs, vs. amalgam restorations in primary molars by means of a literature review and meta-analysis.
TYPES OF STUDIES REVIEWED
From a literature search, the authors selected clinical studies that evaluated treatment with PMCs vs. amalgam control restorations in primary molars and provided data against which treatment outcomes could be compared.
RESULTS
Ten studies with durations ranging from 1.6 to 10 years fulfilled the selection criteria. Their failure rates, based on need for subsequent treatment or retention of the restoration at final evaluation, ranged from 1.9 to 30.3 percent for PMCs and 11.6 to 88.7 percent for amalgam restorations. Overall, PMCs demonstrated greater longevity and reduced retreatment need compared with amalgam control restorations. The odds ratio for all studies fell within the boundary favoring treatment with PMCs.
CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS
Analysis of the literature, though mainly retrospective studies, demonstrated evidence of a more favorable outcome for PMCs than for amalgam restorations in primary molars requiring multisurface restorations.
Topics: Crowns; Dental Amalgam; Dental Restoration Failure; Dental Restoration, Permanent; Humans; Molar; Time Factors; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 10715925
DOI: 10.14219/jada.archive.2000.0177 -
Quintessence International (Berlin,... 2016With the Minamata Convention the use of mercury will be phased down, and this undoubtedly will have an effect on dental treatment regimens and economic resources.... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
With the Minamata Convention the use of mercury will be phased down, and this undoubtedly will have an effect on dental treatment regimens and economic resources. Composite resin restorations are considered viable alternatives to amalgam fillings; however, these will not be covered completely by health insurance systems in many countries. Recently, a high-viscosity glass-ionomer cement (hvGIC) processed with a resinous coating (RC) has been introduced, and has been marketed as a restorative material in load-bearing Class I cavities (and in Class II cavities with limited size), thus serving as a possible alternative to amalgam fillings.
OBJECTIVE
To evaluate the literature on this treatment approach, and to focus particularly on the clinical performance of the hvGIC/RC combination.
SEARCH STRATEGY
The Cochrane Library as well as Ebsco, Embase, PubMed, and Scopus databases were screened. Moreover, relevant abstracts published with dental meetings were reviewed.
SELECTION CRITERIA
All available randomized clinical trials focusing on the hvGIC/RC approach (published either as full-texts or abstracts until June 2016) were selected. Moreover, single-group studies using hvGIC/RC were included.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Screening of titles and abstracts, data extraction, and quality assessments of full-texts according to Oxford scoring were performed.
RESULTS
Regarding failure rates, minor differences between hvGIC/RC and GIC or composite resins as comparators could be observed in seven clinical studies. The hvGIC/RC combination showed high survival rates (with only few catastrophic failures) of up to 6 years.
CONCLUSION
Class I retention rates of hvGIC/RC seem promising, but further high-quality clinical studies are clearly warranted.
Topics: Composite Resins; Dental Amalgam; Dental Caries; Dental Restoration, Permanent; Glass Ionomer Cements; Humans; Mercury; Viscosity
PubMed: 27757445
DOI: 10.3290/j.qi.a36884 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Apr 2009Childhood caries (tooth decay) consists of a form of tooth decay that affects the milk teeth (also known as baby or primary teeth) of children. This may range from tooth... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Childhood caries (tooth decay) consists of a form of tooth decay that affects the milk teeth (also known as baby or primary teeth) of children. This may range from tooth decay in a single tooth to rampant caries affecting all the teeth in the mouth. Primary teeth in young children are vital to their development and every effort should be made to retain these teeth for as long as is possible. Dental fillings or restorations have been used as an intervention to repair these damaged teeth. Oral health professionals need to make astute decisions about the type of restorative (filling) material they choose to best manage their patients with childhood caries. This decision is by no means an easy one as remarkable advances in dental restorative materials over the last 10 years has seen the introduction of a multitude of different filling materials claiming to provide the best performance in terms of durability, aesthetics, symptom relief, etc when placed in the mouth. This review sought to compare the different types of dental materials against each other for the same outcomes.
OBJECTIVES
The objective of this review was to compare the outcomes (including pain relief, survival and aesthetics) for restorative materials used to treat caries in the primary dentition in children. Additionally, the restoration of teeth was compared with extraction and no treatment.
SEARCH STRATEGY
Electronic searches of the following databases were undertaken: the Cochrane Oral Health Group's Trials Register (up to January 2009); CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library 2009, Issue1); MEDLINE (1966 to January 2009); EMBASE (1996 to January 2009); SIGLE (1976 to 2004); and conference proceedings on early childhood caries, restorative materials for paediatric dentistry, and material sciences conferences for dental materials used for children's dentistry (1990 to 2008). The searches attempted to identify all relevant studies irrespective of language.Additionally, the reference lists from articles of eligible papers were searched, handsearching of key journals was undertaken, and personal communication with authors and manufacturers of dental materials was initiated to increase the pool of suitable trials (both published and unpublished) for inclusion into this review.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi-randomised controlled trials with a minimum period of 6 months follow up were included. Both parallel group and split-mouth study designs were considered. The unit of randomisation could be the individual, group (school, school class, etc), tooth or tooth pair. Included studies had a drop-out rate of less than 30%. The eligible trials consisted of young children (children less than 12 years) with tooth decay involving at least one tooth in the primary dentition which was symptomatic or symptom free at the start of the study.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Data were independently extracted, in duplicate, by two review authors. Disagreements were resolved by consultation with a third review author. Authors were contacted for missing or unclear information regarding randomisation, allocation sequence, presentation of data, etc. A quality assessment of included trials was undertaken. The Cochrane Collaboration statistical guidelines were followed for data analysis.
MAIN RESULTS
Only three studies were included in this review. The Fuks 1999 study assessed the clinical performance of aesthetic crowns versus conventional stainless steel crowns in 11 children who had at least two mandibular primary molars that required a crown restoration. The outcomes assessed at 6 months included gingival health (odds ratio (OR) 0.3; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.01 to 8.32), restoration failure (OR 3.29; 95% CI 0.12 to 89.81), occlusion, proximal contact and marginal integrity. The odds ratios for occlusion, proximal contact and marginal integrity could not be estimated as no events were recorded at the 6-month evaluation. The Donly 1999 split-mouth study compared a resin-modified glass ionomer (Vitremer) with amalgam over a 36-month period. Forty pairs of Class II restorations were placed in 40 patients (21 males; 19 females; mean age 8 years +/- 1.17; age range 6 to 9 years). Although the study period was 3 years (36 months), only the 6- and 12-month results are reported due to the loss to follow up of patients being greater than 30% for the 24- and 36-month data. Marks 1999a recruited 30 patients (age range 4 to 9 years; mean age 6.7 years, standard deviation 2.3) with one pair of primary molars that required a Class II restoration. The materials tested were Dyract (compomer) and Tytin (amalgam). Loss to follow up at 24 and 36 months was 20% and 43% respectively. This meant that only the 24-month data were useable. For all of the outcomes compared in all three studies, there were no significant differences in clinical performance between the materials tested.No studies were found that compared restorations versus extractions or no treatment as an intervention in children with childhood caries.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
It was disappointing that only three trials that compared three different types of materials were suitable for inclusion into this review. There were no significant differences found in all three trials for all of the outcomes assessed. Well designed, randomised controlled trials comparing the different types of filling materials for similar outcomes are urgently needed in dentistry. There was insufficient evidence from the three included trials to make any recommendations about which filling material to use.
Topics: Child; Child, Preschool; Compomers; Composite Resins; Crowns; Dental Alloys; Dental Amalgam; Dental Caries; Dental Materials; Dental Restoration, Permanent; Glass Ionomer Cements; Humans; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Tooth, Deciduous
PubMed: 19370602
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004483.pub2 -
The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry Mar 2017No knowledge synthesis exists concerning when to use a direct restoration versus a complete-coverage indirect restoration in posterior vital teeth. (Review)
Review
STATEMENT OF PROBLEM
No knowledge synthesis exists concerning when to use a direct restoration versus a complete-coverage indirect restoration in posterior vital teeth.
PURPOSE
The purpose of this systematic review was to identify the failure rate of conventional single-unit tooth-supported restorations in posterior permanent vital teeth as a function of remaining tooth structure.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
Four databases were searched electronically, and 8 selected journals were searched manually up to February 2015. Clinical studies of tooth-supported single-unit restorative treatments with a mean follow-up period of at least 3 years were selected. The outcome measured was the restorations' clinical or radiological failure. Following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines, the Cochrane Collaboration procedures for randomized control trials, the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology criteria for observational studies, 2 reviewers independently applied eligibility criteria, extracted data, and assessed the quality of the evidence of the included studies using the American Association of Critical Care Nurses' system. The weighted-mean group 5-year failure rates of the restorations were reported according to the type of treatment and remaining tooth structure. A metaregression model was used to assess the correlation between the number of remaining tooth walls and the weighted-mean 5-year failure rates.
RESULTS
Five randomized controlled trials and 9 observational studies were included and their quality ranged from low to moderate. These studies included a total of 358 crowns, 4804 composite resins, and 303582 amalgams. Data obtained from the randomized controlled trials showed that, regardless of the amount of remaining tooth structure, amalgams presented better outcomes than composite resins. Furthermore, in teeth with fewer than 2 remaining walls, high-quality observational studies demonstrated that crowns were better than amalgams. A clear inverse correlation was found between the amount of remaining tooth structure and restoration failure.
CONCLUSIONS
Insufficient high-quality data are available to support one restorative treatment or material over another for the restoration of vital posterior teeth. However, the current evidence suggests that the failure rates of treatments may depend on the amount of remaining tooth structure and types of treatment.
Topics: Composite Resins; Dental Amalgam; Dental Caries; Dental Materials; Dental Restoration Failure; Dental Restoration, Permanent; Humans; Meta-Analysis as Topic; Molar; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Tooth Crown; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 27765400
DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2016.08.003 -
Clinical Oral Investigations Jul 2022This study aimed to systematically review the literature to compare the risk of failure of repaired and replaced defective direct resin composite and amalgam... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
This study aimed to systematically review the literature to compare the risk of failure of repaired and replaced defective direct resin composite and amalgam restorations performed in permanent teeth.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
The PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, Lilacs, BBO, Web of Science, SciELO, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) databases, and gray literature were searched to identify longitudinal clinical studies related to the research question. No publication year or language restriction was considered. Two authors independently selected the studies, extracted the data, and assessed the risk of bias and certainty of evidence. A meta-analysis was performed using a fixed effects model at a 5% significance level.
RESULTS
From 1224 potentially eligible studies, thirteen were selected for full-text analysis, and three were included in the systematic review and meta-analysis. There was no difference in the risk of failure of repaired and replaced defective direct restorations (RR: 1.21, 95% CI: 0.51-2.83), either for resin composite (p = 0.97) or amalgam (p = 0.51) restorations. The risk of bias was high and the certainty of evidence was very low.
CONCLUSION
Based on the very low certainty of evidence, the repair of direct restorations does not present a significant difference in the risk of failure when compared to replacements in permanent teeth.
CLINICAL RELEVANCE
Restoration repair is a procedure that is included in the minimal intervention principle for improvement of tooth longevity in that the risk of failure of repaired partially defective restorations in permanent teeth seems similar to that of replacement. Further studies are required before definitive conclusions can be drawn.
Topics: Composite Resins; Dental Amalgam; Dental Care; Dental Restoration Failure; Dental Restoration, Permanent; Dentition, Permanent; Humans
PubMed: 35362754
DOI: 10.1007/s00784-022-04459-0 -
International Journal of Paediatric... Nov 2013Atraumatic restorative treatment (ART) has demonstrated good longevity when used for single-surface restorations, but lower success rates are reported for... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Atraumatic restorative treatment (ART) has demonstrated good longevity when used for single-surface restorations, but lower success rates are reported for occlusoproximal surfaces.
AIM
This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to verify the pooled success rate of occlusoproximal ART restorations in primary teeth considering the outcomes: longevity, pulp damage, or caries lesion progression.
DESIGN
Literature searching was carried out on the studies reporting clinical trials indexed in PubMed and in English language, comprising the outcomes. A meta-analysis was undertaken considering the results from reviewed studies.
RESULTS
An initial search resulted in 126 articles, and three of them were finally selected. The main reasons for excluding articles were the absence of control group, as amalgam, composite resin, or compomer restorations to be compared with ART (hand excavation + high-viscous GIC). The pooled estimate (odds ratio; 95% confidence interval) for ART approach success was 1.04 (0.65-1.66).
CONCLUSION
Atraumatic restorative treatment restorations performed with high-viscous GIC present similar survival/success rates to conventional approach using composite resin or amalgam for occlusoproximal restorations in primary teeth and can be suggested as a good option for occlusoproximal cavities in primary molars. In addition, further randomized controlled clinical investigations concerning occlusoproximal restorations in primary teeth are still necessary.
Topics: Child; Dental Atraumatic Restorative Treatment; Dental Caries; Humans; Tooth, Deciduous
PubMed: 23190278
DOI: 10.1111/ipd.12013 -
Journal of Dentistry Oct 2007To test the hypothesis that the placement of a crown is associated with improved (long term) survival of root canal treated teeth, using a systematic review process of... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVES
To test the hypothesis that the placement of a crown is associated with improved (long term) survival of root canal treated teeth, using a systematic review process of clinical studies.
DATA SOURCES
Papers referring to single crowns on endodontically treated teeth were located by a MEDLINE search and hand searching. One thousand six hundred and nine references were found, and they were subjected to a systematic review procedure.
STUDY SELECTION
A three-step inclusion-exclusion procedure was applied to identify papers that represented; good scientific practice (GSP), reported results of all patients, restorations on root canal treated teeth (RCT) for more than 2 years and had sufficient data to generate life table analyses. The outcomes were 'survival of RCT restored with crowns' and 'survival of RCT with direct restorations'. Ten studies survived. These data showed an overall mean GSP of 0.605 with a 10-year survival of 81% for crowned RCT and a 10-year survival of 63% for RCT with direct restorations (resin composites, amalgam, cements).
CONCLUSION
RCTs restored with crowns show an acceptable long-term survival of 10 years, while direct restorations have a satisfactory survival only for a short period.
Topics: Acrylic Resins; Composite Resins; Crowns; Dental Amalgam; Dental Restoration Failure; Dental Restoration, Permanent; Humans; Polyurethanes; Survival Analysis; Tooth, Nonvital
PubMed: 17822823
DOI: 10.1016/j.jdent.2007.07.004 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Feb 2010Composite filling materials have been increasingly used for the restoration of posterior teeth in recent years as a tooth coloured alternative to amalgam. As with any... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Composite filling materials have been increasingly used for the restoration of posterior teeth in recent years as a tooth coloured alternative to amalgam. As with any filling material composites have a finite life-span. Traditionally, replacement was the ideal approach to treat defective composite restorations, however, repairing composites offers an alternative more conservative approach where restorations are partly still serviceable. Repairing the restoration has the potential of taking less time and may sometimes be performed without the use of local anaesthesia hence it may be less distressing for a patient when compared with replacement.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the effectiveness of replacement (with resin composite) versus repair (with resin composite) in the management of defective resin composite dental restorations in permanent molar and premolar teeth.
SEARCH STRATEGY
For the identification of studies relevant to this review we searched the Cochrane Oral Health Group Trials Register (to 23rd September 2009); CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library 2009, Issue 4); MEDLINE (1950 to 23rd September 2009); EMBASE (1980 to 23rd September 2009); ISI Web of Science (SCIE, SSCI) (1981 to 22nd December 2009); ISI Web of Science Conference Proceedings (1990 to 22nd December 2009); BIOSIS (1985 to 22nd December 2009); and OpenSIGLE (1980 to 2005). Researchers, experts and organisations known to be involved in this field were contacted in order to trace unpublished or ongoing studies. There were no language limitations.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Trials were selected if they met the following criteria: randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trial, involving replacement and repair of resin composite restorations.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently assessed titles and abstracts for each article identified by the searches in order to decide whether the article was likely to be relevant. Full papers were obtained for relevant articles and both review authors studied these. The Cochrane Collaboration statistical guidelines were to be followed for data synthesis.
MAIN RESULTS
The search strategy retrieved 279 potentially eligible studies, after de-duplication and examination of the titles and abstracts all but four studies were deemed irrelevant. After further analysis of the full texts of the four studies identified, none of the retrieved studies met the inclusion criteria and all were excluded from this review.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There are no published randomised controlled clinical trials relevant to this review question. There is therefore a need for methodologically sound randomised controlled clinical trials that are reported according to the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) statement (www.consort-statement.org/). Further research also needs to explore qualitatively the views of patients on repairing versus replacement and investigate themes around pain, anxiety and distress, time and costs.
Topics: Adult; Composite Resins; Dental Restoration Failure; Dental Restoration, Permanent; Humans; Retreatment
PubMed: 20166078
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD005971.pub2 -
Nederlands Tijdschrift Voor... Sep 2016The article describes studies aimed at investigating factors that can influence composite restoration survival in posterior teeth, focusing on the main reasons for... (Review)
Review
The article describes studies aimed at investigating factors that can influence composite restoration survival in posterior teeth, focusing on the main reasons for failure of direct restorations - fracture and secondary-caries. Since direct composite resin restaurations seem to be more prone to secondary caries when compared to amalgam, one study was performed to evaluate the influence of materials on secondary caries lesion formation in situ. Also, in most clinical studies evaluating restoration survival, there is a tendency to focus on materials factors. Two retrospective clinical investigations, a meta-analysis with primary data of clinical studies and a systematic review were performed to assess the influence of patient-, materials-, and tooth-related variables in posterior composite restoration survival. Composite resins were not related with higher mineral loss when compared to amalgam. Tooth type, number of restored surfaces and patient-related factors like a high caries risk and occlusal wear were consistently found to influence composite resin restoration survival in posterior teeth, whereas materials factors were not consistently implicated with the survivalrate.
Topics: Composite Resins; Dental Caries; Dental Materials; Dental Restoration Failure; Dental Restoration, Permanent; Humans; Retrospective Studies
PubMed: 27643497
DOI: 10.5177/ntvt.2016.09.16182 -
Journal of Endodontics May 2005The purpose of this review was two-fold: (a) to determine which retrograde obturation material(s) best prevents dye/ink penetration in vitro; and (b) to determine... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Review
The purpose of this review was two-fold: (a) to determine which retrograde obturation material(s) best prevents dye/ink penetration in vitro; and (b) to determine whether in vitro results agree with in vivo results. A MEDLINE search was conducted to identify in vitro studies published between January 1966 and October, week 4, 2003, conducted on human teeth, and published in English, German, or French language, testing the resistance to retrograde penetration of retrograde filling materials. The MEDLINE search identified 278 published articles. Of those, 115 studies examined the resistance to penetration of various retrograde filling materials, in vitro. Thirty-four studies met all the inclusion and validity criteria. The results indicate that, beyond 10 days in vitro, the most effective retrofilling materials, when measured by dye/ink penetration are: composites>glass ionomer cement>amalgam>orthograde gutta-percha>EBA. The results of these in vitro studies are not congruent with in vivo study results, suggesting a need to re-evaluate the clinical validity and importance of in vitro studies.
Topics: Aluminum Compounds; Calcium Compounds; Composite Resins; Dental Amalgam; Dental Leakage; Dentin-Bonding Agents; Drug Combinations; Glass Ionomer Cements; Gutta-Percha; Humans; Linear Models; Methylmethacrylates; Oxides; Retrograde Obturation; Root Canal Filling Materials; Silicates; Zinc Oxide-Eugenol Cement
PubMed: 15851926
DOI: 10.1097/01.don.0000145034.10218.3f