-
Dental Materials : Official Publication... May 2022The present review is an update of a systematic review that has been published in 2012. Meanwhile, many new clinical trials on resin composites had been published. New... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVE
The present review is an update of a systematic review that has been published in 2012. Meanwhile, many new clinical trials on resin composites had been published. New materials such as bulk fill resin composites and new glass-ionomer (GIC) based materials had been introduced. The focus of this review was to evaluate the longevity in relation to the material class and adhesive class, while adjusting for a possible study bias effect.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
The database PUBMED/SCOPUS were searched for clinical trials on posterior resin composites. The inclusion criteria were: (1) studies published between 2000 and 2019, (2) prospective clinical trial with at least 2 years of observation; (2) minimal number of restorations at last recall = 20; (3) report on drop-out rate; (4) report of operative technique and used materials; (5) utilisation of Ryge, modified Ryge or FDI evaluation criteria. The bias of each study was assessed by two independent reviewers using Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. For the statistical analysis, linear mixed models fitted on the individual data recorded along time have been used with random effects to account for study, patients and experiment effects. P-values smaller than 0.05 were considered significant.
RESULTS
Of the 423 clinical trials, 62 studies (including 110 experiments) met the inclusion criteria. Material class was divided according to the composite filler in microhybrid (39 experiments/2807 restorations), nanohybrid (24 experiments/1254 restorations), and hybrid (22 experiments/1255 restorations). So-called bulk fill materials were treated as a separate category (9 experiments/506 restorations) as were the GIC (11 experiments/2121 restorations) and the compomer materials (5 experiments/238 restorations). Only one study (1.6%) had low risk of bias, 42 (67.7%) were assessed to have unclear risk of bias and 19 (30.6%) had a high risk of bias. In 52.3% of the studies Class II and Class I restorations had been placed. After 10 years, the survival rate for resin composite restorations dropped to about 85-90% with no significant difference between hybrid, microhybrid and nao-hybrid resin materials. The main reasons for restoration replacement were bulk fractures and wear, which accounted for a about 70% of replacements. Caries at the restorative margins accounted for about 20% of the replacements, and retention loss, inacceptable colour match or marginal integrity, endodontic treatment or cusp fracture for about 10% of the replacements of the resin composite restorations. For compomer and GIC restorations the mean overall survival rate was about 80% after 6 years. For GIC, the main reasons for failure were substantial loss of anatomical contour along with loss of proximal contacts and retention loss. Mainly fractures reduced the longevity of compomers restorations. Also, there was no statistically significant difference between hybrid, micro-hybrid, nano-hybrid and bulk fill resin composites with regard to colour match, surface texture, material fractures, and anatomical form.
CONCLUSIONS
Posterior resin composite restorations that were placed with the enamel etch technique showed the best overall performance; the longevity was not significantly influenced by the filler type or viscosity of resin composite material. With regard to colour match, surface texture and anatomical form, nanohybrid resins were not significantly superior to hybrid or microhybrid resin composites. Compomer and GIC restorations demonstrated considerable shortcomings and had a significant shorter longevity.
Topics: Compomers; Composite Resins; Dental Caries; Dental Restoration, Permanent; Glass Ionomer Cements; Humans; Prospective Studies; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 35221127
DOI: 10.1016/j.dental.2021.10.018 -
Operative Dentistry Nov 2021The following PICO (Patient/Population, Intervention, Comparison, and Outcomes) question was proposed: "Are retention rates of composite resin restorations in noncarious... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
PURPOSE
The following PICO (Patient/Population, Intervention, Comparison, and Outcomes) question was proposed: "Are retention rates of composite resin restorations in noncarious cervical lesions (NCCLs) when using adhesives considered "gold standard" (OptiBond FL and Clearfil SE Bond) higher than those obtained with other adhesives brands"?
METHODS
A search was performed in February 2019 (updated in November 2019) in the PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS, BBO, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, Grey Literature, and IADR abstracts (1990-2018); unpublished and ongoing trial registries, dissertations, and theses were also searched. Only randomized clinical trials (RCTs) conducted in NCCLs that compared either OptiBond FL or Clearfil SE Bond adhesive with other commercially available adhesives were included. The risk of bias (RoB) was applied by using the Cochrane Collaboration tool. A meta-analysis was performed for retention rates at different follow-up times using a random effects model for both the adhesives. Heterogeneity was assessed with the Cochran Q test and I2 statistics. Grading of Recommendations: Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) assessed the quality of evidence.
RESULTS
After removal of duplicates and noneligible articles, 25 studies remained for qualitative synthesis, as one study was common to the two adhesives, of which 9 studies were used for the OptiBond FL meta-analysis and 14 for the Clearfil SE Bond meta-analysis. No significant differences were observed for retention rates in follow-up periods of 12-24 months (p=0.97), 36-48 months (p=0.72), or 108-156 months (p=0.73) for OptiBond FL; and for 12-24 months (p=0.10) and 36-48 months (p=0.17) for Clearfil SE Bond. A significant difference was only found for OptiBond FL at 60-96 months (p=0.02), but only three studies were included in this meta-analysis.
CONCLUSIONS
The evidence from available RCTs conducted in NCCLs that compared OptiBond FL or Clearfil SE Bond does not support the widespread concept that these adhesives are better than any other competitive brands available in the dental market.
Topics: Composite Resins; Dental Bonding; Dental Cements; Dental Restoration, Permanent; Dentin-Bonding Agents; Humans; Resin Cements
PubMed: 34919728
DOI: 10.2341/20-059-LIT -
European Journal of Trauma and... Jun 2022This study aimed to determine the efficacy and safety of cement augmentation for internally fixed trochanteric fractures through a systematic review and meta-analysis of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
PURPOSE
This study aimed to determine the efficacy and safety of cement augmentation for internally fixed trochanteric fractures through a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs).
METHODS
We searched the MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and ClinicalTrials.gov databases to identify RCTs, published until July 2020 that examined the effects of cement augmentation of internal fixation of trochanteric fractures. The primary outcomes were reoperation and Parker Mobility Score, whereas the secondary outcomes were 1-year mortality rate, EuroQol 5 Dimension, fixation failures, and adverse events. We conducted meta-analyses of the outcome measures using the random-effects models. We evaluated the certainty of evidence based on the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool and the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach.
RESULTS
We included three RCTs (326 participants). No significant effect was observed in favor of cement augmentation on all these outcomes. The certainty of evidence for fixation failures was very low and that for the other outcomes was low. The overall risk of bias for each outcome was high or of some concern in all included studies.
CONCLUSIONS
The effect of cement augmentation of internal fixation of trochanteric fractures was uncertain for the clinical outcomes due to the low certainty of evidence. Further RCTs with a low risk of selection bias may present convincing conclusions on the efficacy and safety of cement augmentation.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE
Level 1.
Topics: Fracture Fixation, Internal; Hip Fractures; Humans; Reoperation
PubMed: 34223912
DOI: 10.1007/s00068-021-01746-5 -
Heliyon May 2020Restoring noncarious cervical lesions are challenging to clinical practice. This study aimed to compare the clinical performance/longevity of glass ionomer cements (GIC)...
OBJECTIVE
Restoring noncarious cervical lesions are challenging to clinical practice. This study aimed to compare the clinical performance/longevity of glass ionomer cements (GIC) and composite resins (CR) used for noncarious cervical lesions (NCCL) through a systematic review and meta-analysis (MA).
DATA
Randomized and controlled clinical trials and nonrandomized clinical trials, which compared the clinical performance/longevity of CR and GIC (conventional and/or resin-modified) in the treatment of NCCL, were included.
SOURCE
The methodological quality and risk of bias were evaluated using the Cochrane Collaboration tool. Seven MAs were performed considering (1) the clinical performance of the parameters in common: retention, marginal discoloration, marginal adaptation, secondary caries, color, anatomic form, surface texture and (2) a follow-up time of 12, 24 and 36 months. The prevalence of successful restorations and the total number of restorations per clinical parameter/follow-up time were used to calculate the relative risk (95% CI).
STUDY SELECTION
After screening of the studies, 13 studies were used for quantitative synthesis. The risk difference (CI 95%, α, I) between GIC and CR for anatomic form was 0.00 (-0.02, 0.02; p = 0.83; 0%); for color was -0.02 (-0.08, 0.04; p = 0.48; 80%); for surface texture was -0.02 (-0.06, 0.02; p = 0.31; 63%); for secondary caries was -0.00 (-0.01, 0.01; p = 0.87; 0%); for marginal discoloration was 0.01 (-0.01, 0.03; p = 0.23; 3%); for marginal adaptation was 0.01 (-0.01, 0.04; p = 0.34; 32%) and for retention was 0.07 (0.02, 0.12; p = 0.003; 76%).
CONCLUSION
GIC showed a clinical performance significantly higher than CR in regard to retention, whereas for the other parameters, GIC was similar to CR.
CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE
NCCLs is increasingly prevalent among the population and this type of lesion causing defects in the tooth that affect not only aesthetics but also everyday habits, such as drinking, eating and teeth brushing, due to the sensitivity these lesions cause.
PubMed: 32462087
DOI: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2020.e03969 -
Journal of Clinical Periodontology Mar 2013The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to assess and compare peri-implant marginal bone loss in cement- and screw-retained prostheses. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
AIM
The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to assess and compare peri-implant marginal bone loss in cement- and screw-retained prostheses.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
Electronic database and manual searches were undertaken to identify trials, prospective or retrospective studies reporting on radiographic marginal bone loss around dental implants restored with cement- and/or screw-retained prostheses. Two reviewers independently conducted the article selection and data extraction. Random-effects models were used to obtain estimates of peri-implant marginal bone loss [mean, 95% confidence intervals (CI)].
RESULTS
Of the 1217 identified studies, nine finally met the inclusion criteria. Only two studies included both cement- and screw-retained prostheses, three assessed only screw-retained prostheses, and four evaluated only cement-retained prostheses. Pooled mean marginal bone loss was 0.53 mm (CI 95%, 0.31-0.76 mm) for cement-retained prostheses and 0.89 mm (CI 95%, 0.45-1.33 mm) for screw-retained prostheses.
CONCLUSION
There is no evidence to support differences in the marginal bone loss through indirect comparison between cement and screw-retained restorations.
Topics: Alveolar Bone Loss; Cementation; Dental Cements; Dental Implant-Abutment Design; Dental Implants; Dental Prosthesis Retention; Dental Prosthesis, Implant-Supported; Humans; Peri-Implantitis
PubMed: 23297703
DOI: 10.1111/jcpe.12041 -
The International Journal of... 2015This systematic review aimed to identify different prosthodontic outcomes between screw- and cement-retained implant prostheses. (Review)
Review
PURPOSE
This systematic review aimed to identify different prosthodontic outcomes between screw- and cement-retained implant prostheses.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
The relevant articles were retrieved from the following electronic databases: MEDLINE, EMBASE, PubMed (using medical subject headings), and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL). The search was performed up to December 31, 2013, and was restricted to studies on human subjects reported in English. A further search was conducted through the reference lists of the articles found as well as from early online articles. Reviewed studies were those on fixed implant prostheses using different retention mechanisms such as screws or cement. Information on types of screws and mechanisms of preloading, as well as different luting cements, was collected in correlation with prosthodontic maintenance/complication issues seen in the clinical studies.
RESULTS
Sixty-two papers met the review criteria. There were only six randomized controlled trials and none of them included an equivalent number of screw- and cement-retained single implant crowns for comparison. Studies used different types of screws and only a few reported the preloading procedure for the prosthetic screws. Other studies involving cement-retained implant prostheses used a range of dental cements; however, some did not specify the type used. Studies reported various prosthodontic maintenance/complication issues such as screw loosening, porcelain fracture, loss of retention, and esthetic concerns. Five studies did not report any prosthodontic maintenance issues during their observation periods. More recent studies also did not report any incidence of screw loosening. Only two studies stated the standardized criteria for reporting their prosthodontic maintenance/ complication issues.
CONCLUSIONS
With inadequate information and various study designs, it was difficult to compare the prosthodontic outcomes between screw and cement-retained fixed implant prostheses. Both retention mechanisms showed prosthodontic maintenance/complication issues that must be considered and this review showed that the introduction of newer implant components may assist in minimizing these issues. It is also recommended that standardized criteria be used when reporting prosthodontic maintenance/complication issues to allow better comparison of data.
Topics: Cementation; Crowns; Dental Cements; Dental Implants, Single-Tooth; Dental Prosthesis Retention; Dental Prosthesis, Implant-Supported; Dental Restoration Failure; Humans
PubMed: 25822297
DOI: 10.11607/ijp.3947 -
Caries Research 2019To investigate whether silver diamine fluoride (SDF) is effective in preventing new caries lesions in primary teeth when compared to placebo or active treatments. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVES
To investigate whether silver diamine fluoride (SDF) is effective in preventing new caries lesions in primary teeth when compared to placebo or active treatments.
METHODS
Systematic review (CRD42016036963) of controlled clinical trials. Searches were performed in 9 electronic databases, 5 registers of ongoing trials, and reference lists of identified review articles. Two researchers carried out data extraction and quality appraisal independently. The primary outcome was the difference in caries increment (decayed, missing, and filled surfaces or teeth - dmfs or dmft) between SDF and control groups. These differences were pooled as weighted mean differences (WMD) and prevented fractions (PF).
RESULTS
Searches yielded 2,366 unique records; 6 reports of 4 trials that randomized 1,118 and analyzed 915 participants were included. Two trials compared SDF to no treatment, 1 compared SDF to placebo and sodium fluoride varnish (FV), and 1 compared SDF to high-viscosity glass ionomer cement (GIC). All studies had at least 1 domain with unclear or high risk of bias. After 24 months of follow-up, in comparison to placebo, no treatment, and FV, SDF applications significantly reduced the development of new dentin caries lesions (placebo or no treatment: WMD = -1.15, PF = 77.5%; FV: WMD = -0.43, PF = 54.0%). GIC was more effective than SDF after 12 months of follow-up but the difference between them was not statistically significant (WMD, dmft: 0.34, PF: -6.09%).
CONCLUSION
When applied to caries lesions in primary teeth, SDF compared to no treatment, placebo or FV appears to effectively prevent dental caries in the entire dentition. However, trials specifically designed to assess this outcome are needed.
Topics: Cariostatic Agents; Child; Child, Preschool; Controlled Clinical Trials as Topic; Dental Caries; Fluorides, Topical; Follow-Up Studies; Glass Ionomer Cements; Humans; Inflammation; Quaternary Ammonium Compounds; Silver Compounds; Sodium Fluoride; Taste Disorders; Tooth Discoloration; Tooth, Deciduous
PubMed: 29874642
DOI: 10.1159/000488686 -
Clinical Oral Investigations Dec 2020To perform a review on the influence of preheating and/or heating of resinous and ionomeric materials on their physical and mechanical properties and to discuss the...
OBJECTIVES
To perform a review on the influence of preheating and/or heating of resinous and ionomeric materials on their physical and mechanical properties and to discuss the benefits and methods of preheating/heating that have been used.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
A search was performed in the Pubmed, Scopus, Scielo, and gray literature databases. In vitro studies published from 1980 until now were searched using the descriptors "composite resins OR glass ionomer cements OR resin cements OR adhesives AND heating OR preheating." Data extraction and quality of work evaluation were performed by two independent evaluators.
RESULTS
At the end of reading the search titles and abstracts, 74 articles were selected. Preheating of composite resins reduces viscosity, facilitates adaptation to cavity preparation walls, increases the degree of conversion, and decreases the polymerization shrinkage. Preheating of resin cements improves strength, adhesion, and degree of conversion. Dental adhesives showed good results such as higher bond strength to dentin. However, unlike resinous materials, ionomeric materials have an increase in viscosity upon heating.
CONCLUSIONS
Preheating improves the mechanical and physical properties. However, there is a lack of clinical studies to confirm the advantages of preheating technique.
CLINICAL RELEVANCE
Preheating of dental restorative materials is a simple, safe, and successful technique. In order to achieve good results, agility and training are necessary so the material would not lose heat until the restorative procedure. Also, care is necessary to avoid bubbles and formation of gaps, which compromises the best restoration performance.
Topics: Composite Resins; Dental Bonding; Dental Cements; Dental Materials; Dentin; Glass Ionomer Cements; Heating; Materials Testing; Resin Cements
PubMed: 33083851
DOI: 10.1007/s00784-020-03637-2 -
Materials (Basel, Switzerland) Apr 2023Self-adhesive resin cements (SARCs) are used because of their mechanical properties, ease of cementation protocols, and lack of requirements for acid conditioning or... (Review)
Review
Self-adhesive resin cements (SARCs) are used because of their mechanical properties, ease of cementation protocols, and lack of requirements for acid conditioning or adhesive systems. SARCs are generally dual-cured, photoactivated, and self-cured, with a slight increase in acidic pH, allowing self-adhesiveness and increasing resistance to hydrolysis. This systematic review assessed the adhesive strength of SARC systems luted to different substrates and computer-aided design and manufacturing (CAD/CAM) ceramic blocks. The PubMed/MedLine and Science Direct databases were searched using the Boolean formula [((dental or tooth) AND (self-adhesive) AND (luting or cement) AND CAD-CAM) NOT (endodontics or implants)]. Of the 199 articles obtained, 31 were selected for the quality assessment. Lava Ultimate (resin matrix filled with nanoceramic) and Vita Enamic (polymer-infiltrated ceramic) blocks were the most tested. Rely X Unicem 2 was the most tested resin cement, followed by Rely X Unicem > Ultimate > U200, and μTBS was the test most used. The meta-analysis confirmed the substrate-dependent adhesive strength of SARCs, with significant differences between them and between SARCs and conventional resin-based adhesive cement (α < 0.05). SARCs are promising. However, one must be aware of the differences in the adhesive strengths. An appropriate combination of materials must be considered to improve the durability and stability of restorations.
PubMed: 37109832
DOI: 10.3390/ma16082996 -
Swiss Dental Journal Dec 2021The objective was to systematically analyse clinical studies on restorative procedures for teeth affected by molar-incisor hypomineralisation (MIH). The databases...
The objective was to systematically analyse clinical studies on restorative procedures for teeth affected by molar-incisor hypomineralisation (MIH). The databases PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library were searched. Only retrospective and prospective clinical studies dealing with sealing or restoration of MIH-affected teeth were included. The language was restricted to English or German. Thirteen of 36 potentially eligible studies were included focusing on the following subjects: extension of enamel preparation, adhesive procedures prior to restoration, application of fissure sealants as well as restoration with conventional glass ionomer cements (GIC), resin modified glass ionomer cements (RMGIC), resin composites, and indirect restorations. Seven clinical studies were controlled trials. However, only two included MIH-unaffected teeth as control. No meta-analysis was performed due to the heterogeneity of study designs (e.g. severity of MIH or the restorative materials investigated). Based on the present analysis, the annual failure rates were in average 21% for fissure sealants, 22% for GIC, 1-6% for RMGIC, 13-32% for resin composites, and 0-7% for indirect restorations. In summary, only few tendencies can be deduced from this review at a low level of evidence (number of studies): 1) preparation margins in sound enamel seem to be superior to preparations in hypomineralised enamel (1 study), 2) RMGIC seems to be superior to GIC (3 studies), 3) resin composites may be used for restoring all severities of MIH (7 studies) with self-etch and etch-and-rinse adhesive systems generally not performing differently (3 studies), and 4) in cases of severe MIH, indirect restorations showed a good clinical success (4 studies).
Topics: Dental Enamel Hypoplasia; Dental Restoration, Permanent; Humans; Incisor; Molar; Prospective Studies; Retrospective Studies
PubMed: 33764037
DOI: 10.61872/sdj-2021-12-764