-
Acta Stomatologica Croatica Mar 2021Ion-incorporated zeolite is a widely used antimicrobial material studied for various dental applications. At present, there is no other systematic review that evaluates... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVE
Ion-incorporated zeolite is a widely used antimicrobial material studied for various dental applications. At present, there is no other systematic review that evaluates the effectiveness of zeolite in all dental materials. The purpose of this study was to review all available literature that analyzed the antimicrobial effects and/or mechanical properties of zeolite as a restorative material in dentistry.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
Following PRISMA guidelines, an exhaustive search of PubMed, Ovid Medline, Scopus, Embase, and the Dentistry & Oral Sciences Source was conducted. No language or time restrictions were used and the study was conducted from June 1, 2020 to August 17, 2020. Only full text articles were selected that pertained to the usage of zeolite in dental materials including composite resin, bonding agents, cements, restorative root material, cavity base material, prosthesis, implants, and endodontics.
RESULTS
At the beginning of the study, 1534 studies were identified, of which 687 duplicate records were excluded. After screening for the title, abstract, and full texts, 35 articles remained and were included in the qualitative synthesis. An Inter-Rater Reliability (IRR) test, which included a percent user agreement and reliability percent, was conducted for each of the 35 articles chosen.
CONCLUSION
Although ion-incorporated zeolite may enhance the antimicrobial properties of dental materials, the mechanical properties of some materials, such as MTA and acrylic resin, may be compromised. Therefore, since the decrease in mechanical properties depends on zeolite concentration in the restorative material, it is generally recommended to add 0.2-2% zeolite by weight.
PubMed: 33867540
DOI: 10.15644/asc55/1/9 -
The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry Jul 2023Screwmentable prostheses were developed to combine the benefits of screw retention and cement retention. However, data are limited on the clinical performance of this... (Review)
Review
STATEMENT OF PROBLEM
Screwmentable prostheses were developed to combine the benefits of screw retention and cement retention. However, data are limited on the clinical performance of this type of prosthesis.
PURPOSE
The purpose of this systematic review was to collect scientific evidence on screwmentable prostheses and evaluate their long-term clinical behavior.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
An electronic search was conducted by 2 independent reviewers for articles published in scientific dental journals in English from 2004 to April 2020. The search strategy followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Inclusion criteria were scientific studies concerning the screwmentable type of prosthesis.
RESULTS
The search provided 494 records. Of these, 24 studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria and were included in the review. The included articles presented significant heterogeneity concerning the manufacturing process and the materials used. One randomized clinical trial, 2 prospective clinical studies, 14 in vitro studies, 3 protocol descriptions, 1 case series, and 3 case reports were included.
CONCLUSIONS
Based on the systematic search of the literature, it is concluded that the screwmentable prosthesis combines advantages of both cement-retained and screw-retained restorations, including passive fit, retrievability, excess cement control, tissue-friendly emergence profile, and improved esthetics. Nevertheless, data from well-designed clinical trials are limited, and further research is required to provide evidence on their long-term clinical behavior.
Topics: Dental Implants; Dental Prosthesis Retention; Prospective Studies; Dental Prosthesis, Implant-Supported; Esthetics, Dental; Dental Cements; Glass Ionomer Cements; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 34740460
DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2021.08.027 -
Journal of Oral Rehabilitation Sep 2011The aim of the article is to assess the current literature in terms of the prosthetic outcome of cement-retained implant-supported fixed restorations, as well as to... (Review)
Review
The aim of the article is to assess the current literature in terms of the prosthetic outcome of cement-retained implant-supported fixed restorations, as well as to determine the type of cement that can be recommended for clinical application. A review of the literature published up to May 2010 was conducted to identify clinical studies about cement-retained implant-supported fixed restorations. The search strategy applied was a combination of MeSH terms and free text words, including the following keywords: implants, implant-supported fixed dental prostheses (FDPs), bridges, implant-supported single crowns (SCs), cement-retained, cement fixation, cement, cementation, cement failure, retention, and loss of retention, technical complications, mechanical complications, prosthetic complication, retrievability and maintenance. Thirty-two studies met the inclusion criteria. The studies were divided into two categories: 15 short-term clinical studies with an observation period of less than 5 years, and 17 long-term clinical studies with an observation period of 5 years and more. The most common technical complications of cement-retained implant-supported fixed restorations were loss of retention, chipping and abutment screw loosening. The results of the current review revealed no guidelines about cement or cementation procedures. It may be stated that despite the questionable retrievability of cement-retained implant-supported fixed restorations, this treatment modality is a reliable and effective option, especially for implant-supported SCs and short-span FDPs. The literature does not provide accurate information about the clinical outcome of cement-retained implant-supported fixed restorations nor about the ideal type of cement that facilitates stability and maintains retrievability. Standardised randomised clinical trials will provide valuable information to this issue.
Topics: Cementation; Dental Cements; Dental Prosthesis Retention; Dental Prosthesis, Implant-Supported; Dental Restoration Failure; Dental Restoration, Permanent; Humans; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 21395638
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2842.2011.02209.x -
The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry Jan 2019Cement-retained implant-supported prostheses eliminate screw loosening and enhance esthetics. However, retrievability and the possibility of removing extruded excess...
Effects of modifying implant screw access channels on the amount of extruded excess cement and retention of cement-retained implant-supported dental prostheses: A systematic review.
STATEMENT OF PROBLEM
Cement-retained implant-supported prostheses eliminate screw loosening and enhance esthetics. However, retrievability and the possibility of removing extruded excess cement (EEC) have been problematic.
PURPOSE
The purpose of this systematic review was to analyze the effects of modifying the screw access channel (SAC) on the amount of EEC and the retention of cement-retained implant-supported prostheses.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar databases were searched with appropriate key words. Related titles and abstracts published up to June 2017 were screened and selected on the basis of defined inclusion criteria. Full texts of all studies were read and subjected to quality assessments. After the initial search, 1521 articles were included in the study. Of these, 11 studies were subjected to critical appraisal, and 10 of them were reliable enough in methodology to be systemically reviewed.
RESULTS
All the studies were in vitro and described a total of 260 specimens. According to the interpreted results, closed SACs caused lower retention with a higher amount of EEC, whereas open SACs caused the reverse. Also, as the abutment height decreased, retention decreased.
CONCLUSIONS
Extending the crown's margin into the SAC, leaving the SAC open, and using internal vents in the SAC space are possible methods of modifying the SAC to gain higher retentive values. Also, the use of internal vents in the SAC system and open or partially filled SAC space reduce the amount of EEC.
Topics: Bone Screws; Crowns; Databases, Factual; Dental Abutments; Dental Cements; Dental Implants; Dental Prosthesis Retention; Dental Prosthesis, Implant-Supported; Dental Restoration Failure; Dental Restoration, Permanent; Dental Restoration, Temporary; Esthetics, Dental; Humans
PubMed: 30006223
DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2018.03.002 -
The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry Oct 2023Implant-supported fixed dental prostheses can be cement- or screw-retained on the implant or abutment, with advantages and disadvantages for each method. Cemented... (Review)
Review
STATEMENT OF PROBLEM
Implant-supported fixed dental prostheses can be cement- or screw-retained on the implant or abutment, with advantages and disadvantages for each method. Cemented prostheses have been associated with peri-implant disease because cement remnants act as a reservoir for bacteria and hinder biofilm control. However, contrasting evidence has been presented regarding this association based on studies with varying designs, and a systematic review and meta-analysis is required.
PURPOSE
The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to answer the focused question: In patients who received implant-supported prostheses, is the incidence of peri-implant diseases higher in cemented implant-supported prostheses than in screw-retained ones?
MATERIAL AND METHODS
The search was conducted using the National Library of Medicine (MEDLINE-PubMed), SCOPUS, EMBASE, and ISI Web of Science databases. Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) that assessed the incidence of peri-implant disease in cement- and screw-retained prostheses were included. Two authors independently screened the titles and abstracts, and analyzed the full texts, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias. The findings were summarized using meta-analyses with random effects, and the level of certainty of the evidence was determined using the grading of recommendations, assessments, development, and evaluations (GRADE) approach.
RESULTS
The search yielded 4455 articles that met the inclusion criteria based on the title and/or abstract selection. A total of 6 RCTs were included for analysis. The meta-analysis revealed no significant difference between cement- and screw-retained prostheses for the risk of peri-implant mucositis (RR: 1.36, 95% CI: 0.42-4.38, P=.61). Similarly, no significant difference was observed between cement- and screw-retained prostheses for the incidence of peri-implantitis (RR: 1.00, 95% CI: 0.23-4.31, P=1.00).
CONCLUSIONS
Moderate certainty evidence suggests that cement- and screw-retained prostheses present a similar risk for peri-implant mucositis and peri-implantitis.
PubMed: 37793953
DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2023.08.030 -
Journal of Dentistry Oct 2023Answer the PICO question: Do class I and II posterior restorations in permanent teeth placed with high-viscosity glass-ionomer cement (HV-GIC) fail more than composite... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVES
Answer the PICO question: Do class I and II posterior restorations in permanent teeth placed with high-viscosity glass-ionomer cement (HV-GIC) fail more than composite resin (CR) restorations?
DATA
The study was registered in the PROSPERO database (CRD42020138290). Randomized and controlled clinical trials, comparing the performance of HV-GIC and CR in load bearing cavities of posterior permanent teeth were included. Cochrane risk of bias tool and GRADE were used to assess the quality and certainty of the evidence. Meta-analyses were performed for clinical outcomes on USPHS and FDI criteria for 12-, 24- and 36-months follow-ups.
SOURCES
PubMed, Scopus and Web of Science were last searched on April 2, 2022, without language or date restrictions. Reference lists of primary studies and their related article link in PubMed were manually searched.
STUDY SELECTION
Ten studies were included, while data from 8 were used for the meta-analyses. A total of 849 HV-GIC and 800 CR restorations were followed. The primary outcome was the fracture/retention of the restoration, with a comparable performance for both materials on all follow-ups. The 36 months follow-up for class I restorations (longest) showed risk difference of -0,00 (95%CI -0,03 to 0,03; p = 0,98) and no heterogeneity (p = 0,98, I=0%). The certainty of the evidence is moderate, as all included studies were at an uncertain risk of bias.
CONCLUSIONS
HV-GIC and CR presented comparable clinical performance in posterior permanent teeth up to 36 months. HV-GIV wear in class I restorations followed by 24 months was the only poorer result compared to CR.
CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE
Conservative load bearing cavities in permanent posterior teeth can be restored with HV-GIC with comparable clinical performance to CR expected at least up to 3 years. HV-GIC is a valuable direct restorative option for posterior teeth in high caries risk patients, in which CR is frequently associated with failure.
Topics: Humans; Glass Ionomer Cements; Composite Resins; Viscosity; Dental Restoration, Permanent; Dentition, Permanent; Dental Caries
PubMed: 37499738
DOI: 10.1016/j.jdent.2023.104629 -
Biomimetics (Basel, Switzerland) Aug 2023Additive manufacturing (three-dimensional (3D) printing) has become a leading manufacturing technique in dentistry due to its various advantages. However, its potential... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Additive manufacturing (three-dimensional (3D) printing) has become a leading manufacturing technique in dentistry due to its various advantages. However, its potential applications for dental ceramics are still being explored. Zirconia, among ceramics, has increasing popularity and applications in dentistry mostly due to its excellent properties. Although subtractive manufacturing (3D milling) is considered the most advanced technology for the fabrication of zirconia restorations, certain disadvantages are associated with it.
METHODS
A systematic review was piloted to compare the clinical performance of zirconium crowns that were fabricated using three-dimensional (3D) milling and 3D printing. A meta-analysis was performed, and studies published up to November 2022 were identified. The terms searched were "Zirconium crowns", "3D printing", "CAD/CAM" (Computer-Aided Design and Computer-Aided Manufacturing), "Milling", "dental crowns", and "3D milling". The characteristics that were compared were the year in which the study was published, study design, age of the patient, country, the number of crowns, the type of crown fabrication, marginal integrity, caries status, and outcomes. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were used to structure this systematic review. Out of eleven hundred and fifty titles identified after a primary search, nine articles were included in the quantitative analysis. The research question based on PICO/PECO (Participant, Intervention/exposure, Comparison, and Outcome) was "Do 3D-printed and milled (P) zirconia crowns and FDPs (I) have a better survival rate (O) when conventional prosthesis is also an option (C)"? The data collected were tabulated and compared, and the risk of bias and meta-analysis were later performed. Only nine articles (clinical research) were selected for the study. Since there were no clinical studies on the 3D printing of zirconium crowns, six in vitro studies were considered for the comparison. Zirconium crowns in the milling group had an average minimum follow-up of 6 months.
RESULTS
A moderate risk of bias was found, and survival was significant. A high heterogeneity level was noted among the studies. Marginal integrity, periodontal status, and survival rate were high. Linear regression depicted no statistical correlation between the type of cement used and the survival rate.
CONCLUSIONS
It can be concluded that the milled crowns had a higher performance and satisfactory clinical survival.
PubMed: 37754145
DOI: 10.3390/biomimetics8050394 -
The Journal of Contemporary Dental... Aug 2023The present systematic review aimed to report the studies concerning the primers in improving bond strength and identifying pertinent primers for a particular dental... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
AIM
The present systematic review aimed to report the studies concerning the primers in improving bond strength and identifying pertinent primers for a particular dental alloy by adhering to PRISMA precepts.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
PubMed and Semantic Scholar databases were scoured for articles using 10 search terms. studies satisfying the inclusion criteria were probed which were meticulously screened and scrutinized for eligibility adhering to the 11 exclusion criteria. The quality assessment tool for studies (QUIN Tool) containing 12 criteria was employed to assess the risk of bias (RoB).
RESULTS
A total of 48 studies assessing shear bond strength (SBS) and 15 studies evaluating tensile bond strength (TBS) were included in the qualitative synthesis. Concerning SBS, 33.4% moderate and 66.6% high RoB was observed. Concerning TBS, 26.8% moderate and 73.2% high RoB was discerned. Seventeen and two studies assessing SBS and TBS, respectively, were included in meta-analyses.
CONCLUSIONS
Shear bond strength and TBS increased for the primed alloys. Cyclic disulfide primer is best-suited for noble alloys when compared with thiol/thione primers. Phosphoric acid- and phosphonic acid ester-based primers are opportune for base alloys.
CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE
The alloy-resin interface (ARI) would fail if an inappropriate primer was selected. Therefore, the selection of an appropriate alloy adhesive primer for an alloy plays a crucial role in prosthetic success. This systematic review would help in the identification and selection of a congruous primer for a selected alloy.
Topics: Databases, Factual; Dental Alloys; Disulfides; Thiones; Dental Cements
PubMed: 38193174
DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10024-3514 -
Dental Materials : Official Publication... Dec 2023The objective is to compare the preventive effect on secondary caries of glass ionomer cement (GIC) restorations with amalgam or resin-composite restorations. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVE
The objective is to compare the preventive effect on secondary caries of glass ionomer cement (GIC) restorations with amalgam or resin-composite restorations.
METHODS
Two independent researchers conducted a systematic search of English publications in PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane and Scopus. They selected randomized clinical trials comparing secondary caries incidences around GIC restorations (conventional GIC or resin-modified GIC) with amalgam or resin-composite restorations. Meta-analysis of the secondary-caries incidences with risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence interval (95% CI) as the effect measure was performed.
RESULTS
This review included 64 studies. These studies included 8310 GIC restorations and 5857 amalgam or resin-composite restorations with a follow-up period from 1 to 10 years. Twenty-one studies with 4807 restorations on primary teeth and thirty-eight studies with 4885 restorations on permanent teeth were eligible for meta-analysis. The GIC restorations had a lower secondary caries incidence compared with amalgam restorations in both primary dentition [RR= 0.55, 95% CI:0.41-0.72] and permanent dentition [RR= 0.20, 95% CI:0.11-0.38]. GIC restorations showed similar secondary caries incidence compared with resin-composite restorations in primary dentition [RR= 0.92, 95% CI:0.77-1.10] and permanent dentition [RR= 0.77, 95% CI:0.39-1.51]. Conventional GIC restorations showed similar secondary caries incidence compared with resin-modified GIC-restored teeth in both primary dentition [RR= 1.12, 95% CI:0.67-1.87] and permanent dentition [RR= 1.63, 95% CI:0.34-7.84].
CONCLUSIONS
GIC restorations showed a superior preventive effect against secondary caries compared to amalgam restorations, and a similar preventive effect against secondary caries compared to resin-composite restorations in both primary and permanent teeth. [PROSPERO Registration ID: CRD42022380959].
Topics: Humans; Dental Restoration, Permanent; Glass Ionomer Cements; Dental Caries Susceptibility; Dental Caries; Composite Resins; Dental Amalgam
PubMed: 37838608
DOI: 10.1016/j.dental.2023.10.008 -
Clinical Oral Investigations Jun 2023This meta-analysis aimed to elucidate the effects of various acid etching patterns on the sensitivity of teeth and their clinical effectiveness following composite resin... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVES
This meta-analysis aimed to elucidate the effects of various acid etching patterns on the sensitivity of teeth and their clinical effectiveness following composite resin repair.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
PubMed, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and Embase databases were searched for relevant studies on the postoperative sensitivity (POS) of composite resin restorations after using different bonding systems. The retrieval was from the inception of the databases to August 13, 2022, with no filter of written language. Literature screening was conducted by two independent researchers. The Cochrane risk-of-bias assessment tool was adopted for quality evaluation, and Stata 15.0 for analysis.
RESULTS
Twenty-five randomized controlled trials were included in the present study. Following resin composite restoration, 1309 restorations were bonded by self-etching (SE) adhesives, whereas 1271 restorations were bonded by total-etching (TE) adhesives. The meta-analyses showed that there is no evidence to prove the SE and TE will affect POS at present when measured using the modified United States Public Health Service (USPHS) criteria [RR = 1.00 (95% CI: 0.96, 1.04)], the World Dental Federation (FDI) [RR = 1.06 (95% CI: 0.98, 1.15)], or the visual analog scale (VAS) [SMD = 0.02 (95% CI: -0.15, 0.20)] scales. At a certain follow-up time, TE adhesives provide better outcomes in terms of color match, marginal staining, and marginal adaptation. In other words, TE adhesives have better esthetic results.
CONCLUSIONS
The type of bonding technique (ER and SE) does not affect the risk and degree of POS in class I/II and class V restorations. Further research is required to verify whether these findings apply to different forms of composite resin restorations.
CLINICAL RELEVANCE
Besides the fact that TE barely increase postoperative sensitivity, it also yields superior cosmetic results.
Topics: Composite Resins; Dental Cements; Dentin-Bonding Agents; Resin Cements; Dental Restoration, Permanent; Acid Etching, Dental; Esthetics, Dental; Dental Marginal Adaptation
PubMed: 37017757
DOI: 10.1007/s00784-023-05007-0