-
Journal of the Mechanical Behavior of... Oct 2023Bone regeneration is a rapidly growing field that seeks to develop new biomaterials to regenerate bone defects. Conventional bone graft materials have limitations, such... (Review)
Review
Bone regeneration is a rapidly growing field that seeks to develop new biomaterials to regenerate bone defects. Conventional bone graft materials have limitations, such as limited availability, complication, and rejection. Glass ionomer cement (GIC) is a biomaterial with the potential for bone regeneration due to its bone-contact biocompatibility, ease of use, and cost-effectiveness. GIC is a two-component material that adheres to the bone and releases ions that promote bone growth and mineralization. A systematic literature search was conducted using PubMed-MEDLINE, Scopus, and Web of Science databases and registered in the PROSPERO database to determine the evidence regarding the efficacy and bone-contact biocompatibility of GIC as bone cement. Out of 3715 initial results, thirteen studies were included in the qualitative synthesis. Two tools were employed in evaluating the Risk of Bias (RoB): the QUIN tool for assessing in vitro studies and SYRCLE for in vivo. The results indicate that GIC has demonstrated the ability to adhere to bone and promote bone growth. Establishing a chemical bond occurs at the interface between the GIC and the mineral phase of bone. This interaction allows the GIC to exhibit osteoconductive properties and promote the growth of bone tissue. GIC's bone-contact biocompatibility, ease of preparation, and cost-effectiveness make it a promising alternative to conventional bone grafts. However, further research is required to fully evaluate the potential application of GIC in bone regeneration. The findings hold implications for advancing material development in identifying the optimal composition and fabrication of GIC as a bone repair material.
Topics: Glass Ionomer Cements; Bone and Bones; Bone Regeneration; Biocompatible Materials; Bone Cements
PubMed: 37660446
DOI: 10.1016/j.jmbbm.2023.106099 -
The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry Apr 2016No consensus has been reached on which retention system, cement- or screw-retained, is best to avoid bone loss around the implant of a fixed implant-supported... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
STATEMENT OF PROBLEM
No consensus has been reached on which retention system, cement- or screw-retained, is best to avoid bone loss around the implant of a fixed implant-supported restoration.
PURPOSE
The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to compare cement- and screw-retained retention systems in fixed implant-supported restorations in terms of marginal bone loss, implant survival, and prosthetic complications.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
A comprehensive search of studies published from January 1995 to March 2015 and listed in the PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus and the Cochrane Library databases was performed in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement. The meta-analysis was based on the Mantel-Haenszel and inverse variance methods. Marginal bone loss was the continuous outcome measure evaluated by mean difference (MD), and implant survival and prosthetic complications were the dichotomous outcome measures evaluated by risk ratio (RR), both with corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI).
RESULTS
The 20 studies selected for review evaluated 2139 participants, whose mean age was 47.14 years and who had received 8989 dental implants. The mean follow-up was 65.4 months (range: 12-180 months). Results of the MD for marginal bone loss showed statistically significant differences in favor of the cement-retained prosthesis (P =.04; MD: -0.19; CI: -0.37 to -0.01). The implant survival rate was higher for the cement-retained prosthesis (P =.01; RR: 0.49; CI: 0.28 to 0.85), and the prosthetic complication rate was higher for the screw-retained prosthesis (P =.04; RR: 0.52; CI: 0.28 to 0.98). Additional analysis of the mean plaque index did not show differences between retention systems (P=.58; MD: 0.13; CI: -0.32 to 0.57).
CONCLUSIONS
The current meta-analysis indicated that cement-retained, fixed implant-supported restorations showed less marginal bone loss than screw-retained, fixed implant-supported restorations during the follow-up period, which ranged from 12 to 180 months. However, the small difference between the mean values may not show clinical significance. The rates of prosthetic complication and implant survival also compared favorably with cement-retained prostheses.
Topics: Alveolar Bone Loss; Bone Screws; Cementation; Dental Cements; Dental Implants; Dental Prosthesis Retention; Dental Prosthesis, Implant-Supported; Dental Restoration Failure; Humans
PubMed: 26589441
DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2015.08.026 -
Implant Dentistry Jun 2017To perform a systematic review on the impact of residual subgingival cement on peri-implant diseases and crestal bone loss. (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVES
To perform a systematic review on the impact of residual subgingival cement on peri-implant diseases and crestal bone loss.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
MEDLINE, SCOPUS, ISI Web of Knowledge and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) databases were used to identify articles published without time limits.
RESULTS
A total of 6 articles were selected for a total of 389 patients (687 implants). The studies were heterogeneous and had a moderate-to-high risk of bias, but met the inclusion criteria. Four of 6 studies were published by the same research group and assessed similar populations over time. A positive relationship between residual cement and peri-implant inflammation was observed. Data on peri-implant probing depths and crestal bone loss were reported in 1 study.
CONCLUSION
Residual subgingival cement seems to be strongly associated with peri-implant mucositis which is a risk factor for increased probing depths crestal bone loss and peri-implantitis. Zinc oxide eugenol cements should be preferred to resin cements especially in patients with a history of periodontitis.
Topics: Alveolar Bone Loss; Dental Cements; Dental Implants; Humans; Mucositis; Peri-Implantitis; Risk Factors
PubMed: 28437366
DOI: 10.1097/ID.0000000000000593 -
Journal of Indian Prosthodontic Society 2021This systematic review with meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the effect of the laser treatment on bond strength between Y-TZP and the resin cement or with the veneering... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
AIM
This systematic review with meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the effect of the laser treatment on bond strength between Y-TZP and the resin cement or with the veneering ceramic, and the effect on the alteration of the Y-TZP surface roughness.
SETTINGS AND DESIGN
Systematic review and meta analysis following PROSPERO guidelines.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
A comprehensive review was performed up to September 2020 on four databases (PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, and Cochrane Library), using the combination of keywords: "laser AND zirconia AND surface treatment AND bond strength".
STATISTICAL ANALYSIS USED
The meta-analysis was based on the Mantel-Haenszel and inverse variance methods. The continuous outcome was evaluated by mean difference and the corresponding 95% confidence intervals.
RESULTS
A total of 37 studies were identified for the inclusion of data, with only in vitro studies. The types of laser reported in the studies were: Er:YAG, Nd:YAG, Er,Cr:YSGG, CO2, Femtosecond, and Yb lasers. A random-effect model found statistically significant differences between lasers and control groups of Y-TZP (P < 0.00001; MD: 3.08; 95% CI: 2.58 to 3.58). Only the bond strength with the Er:YAG laser did not present statistical difference (P = 0.51; MD: 0.22; 95% CI: -0.44-0.88). In another analysis, a random-effect model found a statistically significant difference between the laser and control groups on surface roughness (P < 0.00001; MD: 0.96; 95% CI: 0.86 to 1.06).
CONCLUSIONS
Laser irradiation is capable to improve the Y-TZP surface roughness and the bond strength of zirconia with resin cement and veneering ceramics. However, there is a lack of laser protocol for the zirconia surface, a fact that makes a simple and direct comparison difficult.
Topics: Ceramics; Humans; Lasers, Solid-State; Materials Testing; Microscopy, Electron, Scanning; Resin Cements; Shear Strength; Surface Properties; Yttrium; Zirconium
PubMed: 33938862
DOI: 10.4103/jips.jips_590_20 -
The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry Nov 2022Established restorative protocols for patients after head and neck radiotherapy are lacking, increasing the failure rates of dental adhesive restorations. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
STATEMENT OF PROBLEM
Established restorative protocols for patients after head and neck radiotherapy are lacking, increasing the failure rates of dental adhesive restorations.
PURPOSE
The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to analyze the evidence regarding the impact of head and neck radiotherapy on the longevity of dental adhesive restorations.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
A search was performed using PubMed, Scopus, and Embase in May 2018 (updated in November 2020). Data extraction was performed regarding the percentage of restoration failure among dental adhesive materials, including glass ionomer cements, resin-modified glass ionomer cements, and composite resins. Risk of bias was assessed by the meta-analysis of statistics assessment and review instrument (MAStARI). Confidence in cumulative evidence was evaluated by the Grading of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) protocol.
RESULTS
Four studies met the inclusion criteria. All included studies were classified as having a moderate risk of bias and reported results regarding class V restorations. Overall, composite resins presented lower failure rates at 2 years (30%) when compared with resin-modified glass ionomer (41%) and glass ionomer cements (57%). Meta-analysis showed that the risk of failure with glass ionomer cements was greater than with resin-modified glass ionomer cements (RR: 1.71, P<.001). Composite resins presented lower risk of failure when compared with glass ionomer (RR: 2.29, P<.001) and resin-modified glass ionomer cements (RR: 1.30, P=.03). Three studies reported results regarding fluoride compliance, which had a negative effect on the survival rates of glass ionomer and resin-modified glass ionomer cements and a positive effect on composite resin restorations.
CONCLUSIONS
The results suggest that composite resin restorations associated with fluoride gel compliance seems to be the best alternative for restoring class V lesions in patients after head and neck radiotherapy. However, the results showed moderate certainty of evidence, which justifies the need for more randomized clinical trials regarding this subject.
Topics: Humans; Dental Restoration, Permanent; Dental Marginal Adaptation; Fluorides; Dental Restoration Failure; Glass Ionomer Cements; Composite Resins; Resin Cements
PubMed: 33715834
DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2021.02.002 -
Cureus Sep 2023This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the effect of different surface treatments on the shear bond strength (SBS) values between zirconia and resin... (Review)
Review
This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the effect of different surface treatments on the shear bond strength (SBS) values between zirconia and resin cement compared to untreated specimens. The effects of various surface treatments on the bond strength between zirconia and resin cement were investigated by searching relevant articles on PubMed, ScienceDirect, and Google Scholar databases. A total of 13 studies that met the inclusion and exclusion criteria and addressed the research question were selected for statistical analysis. The studies were evaluated for heterogeneity, and a meta-analysis was performed. In total, 13 in vitro studies were included in accordance with the eligibility criteria. All 13 studies consistently demonstrated that silica coating yielded the highest SBS, followed by sandblasting and laser treatments. The meta-analysis using a random-effect model indicated a significant intergroup comparison, except for a few studies. Among the three treatments examined, the silica coating of zirconia was identified as the most effective in enhancing the bond strength between zirconia and resin cement. Further controlled laboratory and clinical studies are necessary to validate these findings and explore additional factors that may influence the effects of these surface treatments.
PubMed: 37829958
DOI: 10.7759/cureus.45045 -
Journal of Clinical Medicine Jul 2020The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate the clinical performance of tooth-borne partial and full-coverage fixed dental prosthesis fabricated... (Review)
Review
Clinical Performance of Partial and Full-Coverage Fixed Dental Restorations Fabricated from Hybrid Polymer and Ceramic CAD/CAM Materials: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate the clinical performance of tooth-borne partial and full-coverage fixed dental prosthesis fabricated using hybrid polymer and ceramic CAD/CAM materials regarding their biologic, technical and esthetical outcomes. PICOS search strategy was applied using MEDLINE and were searched for RCTs and case control studies by two reviewers using MeSH Terms. Bias risk was evaluated using the Cochrane collaboration tool and Newcastle-Ottawa assessment scale. A meta-analysis was conducted to calculate the mean long-term survival difference of both materials at two different periods (≤24, ≥36 months(m)). Mean differences in biologic, technical and esthetical complications of partial vs. full crown reconstructions were analyzed using software package R ( 0.05). 28 studies included in the systematic review and 25 studies in the meta-analysis. The overall survival rate was 99% (0.95-1.00, ≤24 m) and dropped to 95% (0.87-0.98, ≥36 m), while the overall success ratio was 88% (0.54-0.98; ≤24 m) vs. 77% (0.62-0.88; ≥36 m). No significance, neither for the follow-up time points, nor for biologic, technical and esthetical (88% vs. 77%; 90% vs. 74%; 96% vs. 95%) outcomes was overserved. A significance was found for the technical/clinical performance between full 93% (0.88-0.96) and partial 64% (0.34-0.86) crowns. The biologic success rate of partial crowns with 69% (0.42-0.87) was lower, but not significant compared to 91% (0.79-0.97) of full crowns. The esthetical success rate of partial crowns with 90% (0.65-0.98) was lower, but not significant compared to 99% (0.92-1.00) of full crowns.
PubMed: 32635470
DOI: 10.3390/jcm9072107 -
Supportive Care in Cancer : Official... Jan 2018This systematic review aims to update on the prevalence of odontogenic-related infections and the efficacy of dental strategies in preventing dental-related... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
This systematic review aims to update on the prevalence of odontogenic-related infections and the efficacy of dental strategies in preventing dental-related complications in cancer patients since the 2010 systematic review.
REVIEW METHOD
A literature search was conducted in the databases MEDLINE/PubMed and EMBASE for articles published between 1 January 2009 and 30 June 2016. Each study was assessed by 2 reviewers and the body of evidence for each intervention was assigned an evidence level.
RESULTS
After examination of the abstracts and full-text articles, 59 articles satisfied the inclusion criteria. The weighted prevalence of dental infections and pericoronitis during cancer therapy was 5.4 and 5.3%, respectively. The frequency of dental-related infections during intensive chemotherapy after complete, partial, and minimal pre-cancer dental evaluation/treatment protocols ranged from 0 to 4%. Protocols involving third molars extractions had the highest complications (40%).
CONCLUSIONS
In view of the low prevalence of infections and the potential for complications after third molar extractions, it is suggested that partial dental evaluation/treatment protocols prior to intensive chemotherapy; whereby minor caries (within dentin), asymptomatic third molars or asymptomatic teeth without excessive probing depth (<8 mm), mobility (mobility I or II) or with periapical lesions of <5 mm were observed; is a viable option when there is insufficient time for complete dental evaluation/treatment protocols. The use of chlorhexidine, fluoride mouth rinses as well as composite resin, resin-modified glass ionomer cement (GIC), and amalgam restorations over conventional GIC in post head and neck radiation patients who are compliant fluoride users is recommended.
Topics: Dental Care; Humans; Neoplasms; Tooth Diseases
PubMed: 28735355
DOI: 10.1007/s00520-017-3829-y -
Operative Dentistry 2014Because there are several ways to cement glass-fiber posts (GFPs) into root canals, there is no consensus on the best strategy to achieve high bond strengths. A... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Because there are several ways to cement glass-fiber posts (GFPs) into root canals, there is no consensus on the best strategy to achieve high bond strengths. A systematic review was conducted to determine if there is difference in bond strength to dentin between regular and self-adhesive resin cements and to verify the influence of several variables on the retention of GFPs. This report followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement. In vitro studies that investigated the bond strength of GFPs luted with self-adhesive and regular resin cements were selected. Searches were carried out in the PubMed and Scopus databases. No publication year or language limit was used, and the last search was done in October 2012. A global comparison was performed between self-adhesive and regular resin cements. Two subgroup analyses were performed: 1) Self-adhesive × Regular resin cement + Etch-and-rinse adhesive and 2) Self-adhesive × Regular resin cement + Self-etch adhesive. The analyses were carried out using fixed-effect and random-effects models. The results showed heterogeneity in all comparisons, and higher bond strength to dentin was identified for self-adhesive cements. Although the articles included in this meta-analysis showed high heterogeneity and high risk of bias, the in vitro literature seems to suggest that use of self-adhesive resin cement could improve the retention of GFPs into root canals.
Topics: Dental Bonding; Dental Stress Analysis; Glass Ionomer Cements; Humans; Post and Core Technique; Resin Cements; Root Canal Therapy
PubMed: 23937401
DOI: 10.2341/13-070-LIT -
International Journal of Oral... 2020To assess the technical and biological complications of screw- and cement-retained implant-supported full-arch dental prostheses. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
PURPOSE
To assess the technical and biological complications of screw- and cement-retained implant-supported full-arch dental prostheses.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
An electronic search was conducted on Medline/PubMed and Cochrane databases in February 2019; irrespective of any time restrictions using MeSH terms. All studies were first reviewed by abstract and subsequently by full-text reading. Further hand search was performed to identify other related references. Articles only related to cement-retained and/or screw-retained reconstructions in full-arch fixed dental prostheses (FDP) were included.
RESULTS
The initial literature search resulted in 3670 papers. 3478 articles remained after removing duplicate articles, and 3439 articles were further excluded by the reviewers after the abstract screening, which resulted in a selection of 39 studies. 12 studies were further excluded due to not fulfilling the inclusion criteria. Hand searching resulted in two additional papers being included, and finally, 29 articles were included in this review. Screw-retained full-arch fixed dental prostheses have fewer complications than cemented reconstructions. Biological complications such as marginal bone loss > 2 mm occurred more frequently in cemented reconstructions, and technical complications such as screw-loosening and screw fracture occurred more in screw-retained reconstructions.
CONCLUSION
Cemented reconstructions exhibited more biological complications (implant loss, bone loss > 2 mm) and screw-retained prostheses exhibited more technical problems. Clinical outcomes were influenced by both fixations in different ways. The screw-retained restorations were more easily retrievable than cemented ones, therefore, technical and eventually biological complications could be treated more easily. For this reason, and for their higher biological compatibility, these reconstructions are preferable.
Topics: Bone Screws; Cementation; Dental Implants; Dental Prosthesis Retention; Dental Prosthesis, Implant-Supported; Dental Restoration Failure
PubMed: 32186285
DOI: No ID Found