-
The Journal of Evidence-based Dental... Dec 2022To determine the clinical performance of light-cured calcium silicate-based cement for direct or indirect pulp capping. The research question was as follows: in teeth... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVES
To determine the clinical performance of light-cured calcium silicate-based cement for direct or indirect pulp capping. The research question was as follows: in teeth with deep caries lesions, does the use of resin-modified calcium silicate-containing composites improve the radiological success and prevent irreversible pulpitis and pulpal necrosis compared with other pulp-capping agents?
MATERIALS AND METHODS
The following databases were screened until September 2021: PubMed, Web of Science, Scielo, Scopus, Embase, and The Cochrane Library. Randomized clinical trials reporting the clinical evaluation of a resin-modified calcium silicate material as an agent for pulp therapy were included. Meta-analysis was performed using the Rev Manager v5.4.1 software. The risk difference and 95% confidence interval of the dichotomous outcome (restoration failure or success) were calculated for comparison.
RESULTS
Ten studies were considered for qualitative analysis and meta-analysis. Studies evaluating the performance of light-cured calcium silicate-based cement from 1 month to a maximum follow-up period of 36 months and comparing it with the performance of CaOH, mineral trioxide aggregate, or Biodentine were included. In the global analysis for direct pulp capping at 6-month follow-up, no statistical differences were observed between the experimental group using the light-cured calcium silicate-based cement and control group (P = .28). However, at 12-month follow-up, global analysis favored the control group (P < .001). For indirect pulp capping, at 6- and 24-month follow-ups, no statistically significant differences were observed between the experimental and control groups (P = .88; P = .21).
CONCLUSIONS
Light-cured calcium silicate-based cement showed a limited clinical performance as a direct pulp capping agent, especially when evaluated in the long term. However, using it as an indirect pulp capping agent may be a reliable and easy-to-use option for restoring teeth with deep caries.
CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE
This systematic review provides evidence that supports the use of light-cured calcium silicate-based cement as an indirect pulp capping agent.
Topics: Humans; Pulp Capping and Pulpectomy Agents; Dental Pulp Capping; Silicate Cement; Glass Ionomer Cements; Dental Cements; Composite Resins
PubMed: 36494107
DOI: 10.1016/j.jebdp.2022.101776 -
Journal of Conservative Dentistry : JCD 2021This systematic review aimed to determine the presence of any proof to validate the utilization of surface treatments to advance the bond strength of fiber posts to... (Review)
Review
Effect of surface treatment on the dislocation resistance of prefabricated esthetic fiber posts bonded with self-adhesive resin cement: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
BACKGROUND
This systematic review aimed to determine the presence of any proof to validate the utilization of surface treatments to advance the bond strength of fiber posts to intraradicular dentin with self-adhesive resin cements.
METHODOLOGY
Laboratory studies that assessed the push-out or pull-out bond strength of the prefabricated esthetic posts whose surface was treated with either chemical or physical treatment or a combination and bonded using self-adhesive resin cement within root canal model were included for this systematic review. The review began after obtaining the registration number from the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO ID-CRD42020165009). Study reporting was performed following the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. Relevant articles were identified using a literature database search in Web of Science, Scopus, PubMed, and EBSCO. Besides this, handsearch was also done to ensure complete capture of the articles.
RESULTS
Fifteen articles were then selected and included in this study, out of which four were excluded for meta-analysis due to usage of the artificial substrate. It was shown that an additional step of surface treatment of esthetic fiber post did not result in significant improvement in dislocation resistance. Assessment of risk of bias categorized the available research into high risk and medium risk. The results showed heterogeneity.
CONCLUSION
The use of additional steps such as chemical, mechanical, or a combination of post surface treatment does not have any added benefit. However, the results must be interpreted with caution due to methodological shortcomings.
PubMed: 34759575
DOI: 10.4103/jcd.jcd_656_20 -
The Journal of Adhesive Dentistry Apr 2022This systematic review aims to explore and compile the effect of adhesive luting on the mechanical properties of dental ceramics used as restorative materials. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
PURPOSE
This systematic review aims to explore and compile the effect of adhesive luting on the mechanical properties of dental ceramics used as restorative materials.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
The PubMed/MEDLINE, Web of Science and Scopus databases were searched on January 31st, 2021 to select laboratory studies written in English, without publishing-date restrictions, which compared the mechanical properties of commercially available dental ceramics as restorative materials luted using adhesive vs non-adhesive strategies. A total of 20 (out of 2039) studies were eligible and included in the analysis. Two authors independently selected the studies, extracted the data and assessed the risk of bias. Mean differences (RevMan5.1, random effects model, α = 0.05) were obtained by comparing resistance values of adhesive and non-adhesive conditions (global analysis). Subgroup analyses were performed considering ceramic composition and aging.
RESULTS
In the global analysis, adhesive luting induced higher mechanical resistance values compared to non-adhesive luting (p ≤ 0.01). The same effect was observed for glass and alumina ceramics (p ≤ 0.01), but not for zirconia polycrystals (p = 0.83). Adhesive luting was favorable in both the aged and non-aged subgroup analysis (p ≤ 0.01). High heterogeneity was found in all meta-analyses. All analyzed studies in the systematic review scored negatively for risk of bias in most of the factors considered.
CONCLUSIONS
Adhesive luting reinforces the mechanical properties of dental ceramics used as restorative materials, with the exception of zirconia polycrystals.
Topics: Ceramics; Dental Bonding; Dental Cements; Dental Materials; Dental Porcelain; Materials Testing; Resin Cements; Surface Properties
PubMed: 35416449
DOI: 10.3290/j.jad.b2916469 -
Operative Dentistry Sep 2020According to the clinical and scientific evidence presented in this systematic review and meta-analysis, dental adhesives containing either organic solvent (acetone or... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Does the Type of Solvent in Dental Adhesives Influence the Clinical Performance of Composite Restorations Placed in Noncarious Cervical Lesions? A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.
CLINICAL RELEVANCE
According to the clinical and scientific evidence presented in this systematic review and meta-analysis, dental adhesives containing either organic solvent (acetone or alcohol) can be used to achieve similar clinical performance and longevity of composite restorations.
SUMMARY
Objectives: This systematic review and meta-analysis compared the clinical performance and survival rates of composite restorations placed in noncarious cervical lesions (NCCLs) using dental adhesives containing acetone or alcohol-based solvents.Methods and Materials: PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Virtual Health Library (VHL) LILACS, Cochrane Library, OpenGrey, Clinical Trials, and Rebec were searched. MeSH terms, supplementary concepts, synonyms, and free keywords were used in the search strategy. All references were crosschecked by two independent investigators following the PICOS strategy (population, NCCLs; intervention, acetone-based bonding agent; comparison, alcohol-based bonding agent; outcome, clinical evaluation parameters and survival rates; study design, randomized controlled clinical trials). Cochrane Collaboration's tool was used to assess risk of bias, and two distinct meta-analyses were performed using the RevMan software. The prevalence of success and the total number of restorations for each group (acetone- or alcohol-based) were used to calculate the risk difference at a confidence interval of 95%. Random-effects models were applied, and heterogeneity was assessed using the I2 index in the pooled and subgrouped meta-analyses. The certainty of evidence was evaluated through the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach.Results: A total of 7876 studies were retrieved, from which 27 studies were selected for the systematic review. Ten studies were classified as "low risk of bias" and included in the meta-analyses. Overall heterogeneity was not significant (I2 = 0.00%). The clinical performance of restorations placed with bonding agents based on both solvents for each of the available parameters presented no statistical significance for any of the meta-analyses (p>0.05).Conclusion: Scientific evidence suggests composite restorations placed with acetone or alcohol-based dental adhesives present similar clinical performance and survival rates in NCCLs.
Topics: Composite Resins; Dental Cements; Dental Restoration, Permanent; Solvents; Tooth Cervix
PubMed: 32516376
DOI: 10.2341/19-124-LIT -
Journal of Dentistry Apr 2016To systematically review the failure rate and complications of different framework designs of resin-bonded fixed dental prostheses (RBFDPs) in the anterior region. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVES
To systematically review the failure rate and complications of different framework designs of resin-bonded fixed dental prostheses (RBFDPs) in the anterior region.
METHODS
A systematic search for clinical studies on RBFDPs published prior to December 2014 in Medline/PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases was conducted and complemented by a manual search. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) as well as prospective and retrospective cohort studies that compared at least two RBFDP framework designs with a minimum of 2 years follow up were included in this review. The quality of the included studies were assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale for cohort studies and Cochrane Handbook for RCT. Prostheses-based data on reported failure rate/survival rate, debonding, and fractures were analyzed by meta-analysis.
RESULTS
Of 1010 screened articles, one RCT and 4 cohort studies fit the inclusion criteria and were included in the meta-analysis. All included articles have a high risk of bias. Failure rates of single-retainer cantilever RBFDPs were lower than two-retainer fixed-fixed RBFDPs (OR 0.42, 95% CI 0.19-0.94, P=0.04). Metal-ceramic RBFDPs showed no difference of failure rates between cantilever RBFDPs and two-retainer fixed-fixed RBFDPs (OR 0.93, 95% CI 0.33-2.63, P=0.89). Debonding was not significantly different between cantilever RBFDPs and two-retainer fixed-fixed RBFDPs (OR 0.61, 95% CI 0.23-1.60, P=0.32). Metal-ceramic RBFDPs showed no difference of debonding between cantilever RBFDPs and two-retainer fixed-fixed RBFDPs (OR 0.81, 95% CI 0.28-2.34, P=0.70,).
CONCLUSIONS
Within the limitations of the present study, cantilever RBFDPs demonstrate lower clinical failure than two-retainer RBFDPs in the anterior region. The failure of metal-ceramic RBFDPs is independent of the framework design, while the failure of all-ceramic RBFDPs with different designs has not been clear yet.
CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE
Based on the principle of minimally invasive treatment, less number of retainers is recommended for RBFDPs.
Topics: Dental Bonding; Dental Prosthesis Design; Dental Restoration Failure; Denture Retention; Denture, Partial, Fixed, Resin-Bonded; Humans; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Resin Cements; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 26875611
DOI: 10.1016/j.jdent.2016.02.003 -
The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry May 2019Zirconia and lithium disilicate have been commonly used as materials for tooth-supported complete-coverage restorations. Adhesive and conventional cements have been...
Effect of cement type on the clinical performance and complications of zirconia and lithium disilicate tooth-supported crowns: A systematic review. Report of the Committee on Research in Fixed Prosthodontics of the American Academy of Fixed Prosthodontics.
STATEMENT OF PROBLEM
Zirconia and lithium disilicate have been commonly used as materials for tooth-supported complete-coverage restorations. Adhesive and conventional cements have been suggested for cementation of these restorations. However, evidence on the effect of cement type on the clinical outcomes of teeth restored with zirconia or lithium disilicate restorations is unclear.
PURPOSE
The purpose of this systematic review was to evaluate the clinical outcomes of teeth restored with zirconia or lithium disilicate restorations when adhesive or conventional cements are used.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
This systematic review adopted the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement and was registered at the international prospective register of systematic reviews (PROSPERO) (CRD42018096493). An electronic search was performed in 2 databases (MEDLINE-PubMed and Cochrane Central), and a manual search, from January 2008 through January 2018. The primary clinical question was framed according to the Problem/Patient/Population, Intervention/Indicator, Comparison, Outcome (PICO) approach. The following question was the primary clinical question: "For patients requiring a single tooth-supported complete-coverage ceramic restoration, does adhesive cementation, as compared with conventional cementation, improve the clinical performance and limit the complications of this restoration?" The search included articles published in peer-reviewed journals in English and was limited to randomized clinical trials and prospective and retrospective clinical studies.
RESULTS
Seventeen clinical studies met the eligibility criteria and were included for qualitative analysis. Included studies had 1280 participants who received 2436 zirconia and lithium disilicate crowns. The survival rates for adhesively cemented zirconia crowns ranged from 83.3% to 100%, whereas those reported for conventionally cemented zirconia crowns ranged from 82.0% to 100%. Survival rates for adhesively cemented lithium disilicate crowns ranged from 83.5% to 100%, whereas the survival rate reported for conventionally cemented lithium disilicate crowns was 98.5%. Commonly reported clinical complications included fracture of the veneering ceramic, crown fracture, and loss of crown retention. The mean follow-up time ranged from 25.5 months to 121.2 months. The studies that were assessed for risk of bias showed poor quality of evidence.
CONCLUSIONS
Based on the available evidence and within the limitations of this systematic review, zirconia and lithium disilicate tooth-supported crowns exhibited comparable survival rates and complication patterns after adhesive or conventional cementation.
Topics: Crowns; Dental Porcelain; Dental Prosthesis Design; Dental Restoration Failure; Humans; Retrospective Studies; United States; Zirconium
PubMed: 30885580
DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2018.10.011 -
Odontology Oct 2023This systematic review evaluated the effects of nano-sized cement particles on the properties of calcium silicate-based cements (CSCs). Using defined keywords, a... (Review)
Review
This systematic review evaluated the effects of nano-sized cement particles on the properties of calcium silicate-based cements (CSCs). Using defined keywords, a literature search was conducted to identify studies that investigated properties of nano-calcium silicate-based cements (NCSCs). A total of 17 studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Results indicated that NCSC formulations have favourable physical (setting time, pH and solubility), mechanical (push out bond strength, compressive strength and indentation hardness) and biological (bone regeneration and foreign body reaction) properties compared with commonly used CSCs. However, the characterization and verification for the nano-particle size of NCSCs were deficient in some studies. Furthermore, the nanosizing was not limited to the cement particles and a number of additives were present. In conclusion, the evidence available for the properties of CSC particles in the nano-range is deficient-such properties could be a result of additives which may have enhanced the properties of the material.
Topics: Oxides; Materials Testing; Calcium Compounds; Silicates; Dental Cements; Glass Ionomer Cements; Drug Combinations
PubMed: 36864211
DOI: 10.1007/s10266-023-00786-0 -
Journal of Conservative Dentistry and... Feb 2024The aim of this study was to systematically compare the bond strength of self-adhesive and self-etch or total-etch resin cement to zirconia. The PubMed, ISI (all), and... (Review)
Review
The aim of this study was to systematically compare the bond strength of self-adhesive and self-etch or total-etch resin cement to zirconia. The PubMed, ISI (all), and Scopus databases were searched for the selected keywords up to November 1, 2021, without date or language restrictions. In vitro studies comparing the bond strength of self-adhesive and self-etch or total-etch resin cement to zirconia were eligible for inclusion in the study. The selected articles were divided into four groups based on the type of resin cement and the storage time. Statistical analysis was performed using the Biostat Comprehensive Meta-Analysis Software version 2 ( = 0.05). The effect of conventional cement ( Glass Ionomer (GI), Resin Modified Glass Ionomer (RMGI) and zinc phosphate) was analyzed using descriptive analysis. The initial search yielded 376 articles, of which 26 were selected after a methodological assessment. Two reviewers independently extracted data and assessed the risk of bias. The results showed that the immediate or delay bond strength of the self-adhesive resin cement to zirconia has no significant difference with the bond strength of self-etch resin cement to zirconia. The immediate and delay bond strength of total-etch cement-zirconia was significantly lower than that of self-adhesive cement-zirconia ( = 0.00). A descriptive analysis of the selected articles showed that the bond strength of self-adhesive resin cement to zirconia was significantly higher than total-etch cement. The results of the meta-analysis showed that both self-adhesive and self-etch resin cement (if applied according to their manufacturer's instruction) are suitable for bonding to zirconia.
PubMed: 38463466
DOI: 10.4103/JCDE.JCDE_225_23 -
Quintessence International (Berlin,... 2017With 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 discuss the outcome based on the evaluation presented in Part I of this paper, and to critically appraise the methodologies of the various studies.
RESULTS
Two of the included studies were industry-funded, and status of the other clinical trials remained unclear. Quality of study reporting was considered perfectible. The use of a light-cured nanofilled resin coating material would seem advantageous, at least when regarding short- and medium term outcomes.
CONCLUSION
Within the respective indications and cavity geometries, the hvGIC/RC approach would seem promising, could merge the phase-down of mercury and the objectives of minimally invasive treatment to some extent, and might be a restorative alternative for patients suffering from allergies or not willing to afford other sophisticated or expensive techniques. These recommendations are based on studies evaluating EQUIA Fil (GC), but are not transferable to clinical perspectives of the glass hybrid successor product (EQUIA Forte; GC).
Topics: Composite Resins; Dental Amalgam; Dental Caries; Dental Restoration, Permanent; Glass Ionomer Cements; Light-Curing of Dental Adhesives; Mercury; Viscosity
PubMed: 28054040
DOI: 10.3290/j.qi.a37211 -
The Journal of Evidence-based Dental... Sep 2019The aim of the present systematic review was to evaluate if epoxy resin-based root canal sealers present superior push-out bond strength compared to calcium... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVES
The aim of the present systematic review was to evaluate if epoxy resin-based root canal sealers present superior push-out bond strength compared to calcium silicate-based root canal sealers.
METHODS
The inclusion criteria consisted of in vitro studies that compared the push-out bond strength of epoxy resin-based and calcium silicate-based sealers. A systematic search was performed in the following databases for articles published until February 2018: PubMed, ScienceDirect, Scopus, Web of Science, and OpenGrey. The quality assessment and data extraction of the selected articles were performed. A meta-analysis of the pooled data and the subgroups according to the root thirds was carried out using the RevMan software (P < .05).
RESULTS
The search resulted in 2292 studies. After the duplicate studies were removed and the title and abstract were read, 20 studies were selected and 17 were considered as having a low risk of bias. The pooled meta-analysis comparing epoxy resin-based (n = 467) and paste-to-paste calcium silicate-based root canal sealers (n = 467) demonstrated higher mean push-out bond strength values (P < .001) for the epoxy resin-based root canal sealers; the heterogeneity among studies was 85% (I). The comparisons between epoxy resin-based (n = 358) and premixed ready-to-use calcium silicate-based root canal sealers (n = 358) also demonstrated a significant difference between the sealers (P < .05), with an I of 95%. The subgroup analysis showed that only in the middle third, were increased bond strength values for epoxy resin-based sealer observed (P < .001), with an I of 94%.
CONCLUSIONS
The epoxy resin-based sealer demonstratedhigher push-out bond strength than paste-to-paste calcium silicate-based root canal sealer regardless of the root third assessed. In addition, the epoxy resin-based sealer exhibited increased push-out bond strength in comparison with premixed ready-to-use calcium silicate-based root canal sealer when evaluating the middle third.
Topics: Calcium Compounds; Dental Bonding; Dentin; Epoxy Resins; Humans; Materials Testing; Root Canal Filling Materials
PubMed: 31732099
DOI: 10.1016/j.jebdp.2019.04.004