-
Journal of Indian Prosthodontic Society 2020The aim of this meta analysis was to evaluate the influence of the processing method on the marginal and internal gaps of lithium disilicate inlays/onlays. (Review)
Review
AIM
The aim of this meta analysis was to evaluate the influence of the processing method on the marginal and internal gaps of lithium disilicate inlays/onlays.
SETTINGS AND DESIGN
A systematic literature review was conducted using the PubMed/Medline, Embase, Scopus, and Cochrane Library databases. This review was registered on the PROSPERO platform.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
The studies were selected according to the marginal and internal gaps of two different fabrication methods for lithium disilicate (milled and pressed).
STATISTICAL ANALYSIS USED
The meta analysis was performed based on the Mantel-Haenszel and inverse variance methods, using the random effects model and a 95% confidence interval.
RESULTS
From all databases, 127 studies were identified. Four in vitro studies were included in the qualitative analysis and three in the meta analysis. Moreover, 197 restorations were evaluated (103 pressed and 94 milled). During the evaluation of only the internal gap, there was a statistically significant difference favoring the pressed technique ( = 0.002). There was no statistically significant difference in the analyses of the marginal gap ( = 0.530) and the total gap ( = 0.450).
CONCLUSION
Both the techniques provided acceptable marginal and total gaps, although the pressed technique revealed a more favorable internal adaptation than the milled onlays/inlays.
PubMed: 33487960
DOI: 10.4103/jips.jips_112_20 -
European Journal of Oral Implantology 2009dental implants require sufficient bone to be adequately stabilised. For some patients implant treatment would not be an option without horizontal or vertical bone... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
dental implants require sufficient bone to be adequately stabilised. For some patients implant treatment would not be an option without horizontal or vertical bone augmentation. A variety of materials and surgical techniques are available for bone augmentation.
OBJECTIVES
to test whether and when augmentation procedures are necessary and which is the most effective technique for horizontal and vertical bone augmentation.
SEARCH METHODS
the Cochrane Oral Health Group's Trials Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched. Several dental journals were hand searched. The bibliographies of review articles were checked, and personal references were searched. More than 55 implant manufacturing companies were also contacted. The last electronic search was conducted on 11 June 2009.
SELECTION CRITERIA
randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of different techniques and materials for augmenting bone horizontally and/or vertically for implant treatment that reported the outcome of implant therapy at least to abutment connection. Trials were divided into two broad categories: horizontal augmentation and vertical augmentation techniques.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
screening of eligible studies, assessment of the methodological quality of the trials and data extraction were conducted independently and in duplicate. Authors were contacted for any missing information. Results were expressed as random-effects models using mean differences for continuous outcomes and odds ratios (OR) for dichotomous outcomes with 95% confidence intervals (CI). The statistical unit of the analysis was the patient.
RESULTS
13 RCTs out of 18 potentially eligible trials were suitable for inclusion. Three RCTs (106 patients) dealt with horizontal and 10 trials (218 patients) with vertical augmentation. Since different techniques were evaluated in different trials, only one meta-analysis could be performed. When comparing whether vertical augmentation procedures were more advantageous than short implants, a meta-analysis of two trials resulted in more implant failures OR = 5.74 (95% CI 0.92 to 35.82; borderline significance, P = 0.06) and statistically significantly more complications OR = 4.97 (95% CI 1.10 to 22.40) in the vertically augmented group. When comparing various horizontal augmentation techniques (three trials) no statistically significant differences were observed. When comparing various vertical bone augmentation techniques (eight trials) no statistically significant differences were observed except for three trials which showed that more vertical bone gain could be obtained with osteodistraction than with inlay autogenous grafts (mean difference 3.25 mm; 95% CI 1.66 to 4.84), and with bone substitutes rather than autogenous bone in guided bone regeneration (mean difference 0.60 mm; 95% CI 0.21 to 0.99) in posterior atrophic mandibles, and that patients preferred a bone substitute block over a block of autogenous bone taken from the iliac crest (OR = 0.03; 95% CI 0.00 to 0.64; P = 0.02).
CONCLUSIONS
conclusions are based on few trials including few patients, sometimes having a short follow-up, and often being judged to be at high risk of bias. Various techniques can augment bone horizontally and vertically, but it is unclear which are the most efficient. Short implants appear to be a better alternative to vertical bone grafting of resorbed mandibles. Complications, especially for vertical augmentation, are common. Some bone substitutes could be a preferable alternative to autogenous bone. Osteodistraction osteogenesis allows for more vertical bone augmentation than other techniques, which, on the other hand, can allow for horizontal augmentation at the same time. Titanium screws may be preferable to resorbable screws to fixate onlay bone grafts.
Topics: Alveolar Ridge Augmentation; Bone Regeneration; Bone Substitutes; Bone Transplantation; Dental Implantation, Endosseous; Dental Implants; Dental Prosthesis Design; Guided Tissue Regeneration, Periodontal; Humans; Osteogenesis, Distraction; Quality Assurance, Health Care; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 20467628
DOI: No ID Found -
Clinical Oral Implants Research Jun 2007Clinical literature was examined for evidence supporting use of CAD/CAM reconstructions and fiber-reinforced materials. (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVE
Clinical literature was examined for evidence supporting use of CAD/CAM reconstructions and fiber-reinforced materials.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Potential evidence was identified via databases [PubMed; EMBASE (R) Drugs & Pharmacology; Center for Reviews and Dissemination, University of York; Cochrane Library], hand search of non-indexed literature, secondary reference searches, and personal contacts with clinical trial PI's. Search terms included: dental restorations; CAD/CAM; CEREC; LAVA; CERCON; Procera; inlay/onlay; dental prosthesis; fiber-reinforced composite (FRC).
RESULTS
Two randomized-controlled clinical trials were identified as examined in one Cochrane Collaboration review relevant to CAD/CAM inlays. One systematic review of 15 CAD/CAM inlay studies was examined. Six studies were identified of three commercial FRC endodontic posts and eight reported on FRC use for fixed denture prostheses. Fifteen ongoing prospective trials were identified studying CAD/CAM fabricated zirconia-based prostheses. A total of 76 papers were referenced including those related to use of in vitro measures as evidence.
CONCLUSIONS
Review of the Cochrane analysis raised concerns that typical RCT protocols may prove insufficient for stratification of confounding variables (patient, practitioner, material) when treatment outcomes are primarily prosthesis- or material-based (not patient-based, e.g., as in fracture). RCT designs are most straightforward when treatment outcomes are patient-based (e.g., soft tissue changes). When treatment responses are material-based, controls also become difficult to define and studies become tests of equivalency/superiority; where well-stratified cohort designs are likely preferred. Large numbers of independent cohort studies support the use of CAD/CAM ceramic inlay/onlay restorations and crowns but many complications inhibit the application of high-level systematic review. Except perhaps for fiber-based endodontic posts, the clinical FRC literature appears insufficient for expert review. Single in vitro measures cannot currently serve as evidence for clinical practice, except in limited cases of simple function (e.g., impression material accuracy). Batteries of in vitro measures are often applied during materials development but cannot substitute for clinical study.
Topics: Acrylic Resins; Ceramics; Composite Resins; Computer-Aided Design; Crowns; Dental Prosthesis Design; Dental Restoration, Permanent; Humans; Inlays; Polyurethanes; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 17594383
DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2007.01443.x -
Journal of Applied Oral Science :... 2016Extraction, periodontitis, or trauma can cause a reduction on the alveolar ridge. This could result in an insufficient alveolar bone width and height. Different... (Review)
Review
UNLABELLED
Extraction, periodontitis, or trauma can cause a reduction on the alveolar ridge. This could result in an insufficient alveolar bone width and height. Different techniques of vertical bone augmentation are described in literature. However, nowadays there is not enough evidence against lateral augmentation procedures to verify if these techniques are stable over a long period of time.
OBJECTIVE
This review analyses the different techniques that are used to vertically augment the bone and evaluate if these techniques are stable over a long period of time.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
The MEDLINE-PubMed database was searched from its earliest records until December 22, 2014. The following search term was used: Alveolar Ridge augmentation [MESH]. Several journals were hand searched and some authors were contacted for additional information. The primary outcome measure that was analyzed was marginal bone level change around dental implants in the augmented sites, and the secondary outcomes were survival and success rates of dental implants placed in the augmented sites.
RESULTS
The search yielded 203 abstracts. Ultimately, 90 articles were selected, describing 51 studies meeting the eligibility criteria. The marginal bone level change for the inlay technique and vertical guided bone regeneration are in agreement with the success criteria. Alveolar distraction showed more marginal bone level change after the first year of loading, and for the inlay technique very few studies were available.
CONCLUSIONS
Based on the available data in the current existing studies with a follow-up period of at least 4 to 5 years, one can summarize that there seems to be a trend that the onlay technique, alveolar distraction, and vertical guided bone regeneration are stable for at least 4 to 5 years.
Topics: Alveolar Ridge Augmentation; Bone Regeneration; Dental Implantation; Dental Implants; Guided Tissue Regeneration, Periodontal; Humans; Inlays; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 27008252
DOI: 10.1590/1678-775720150357 -
Burns : Journal of the International... Jun 2023Hypertrophic scarring is a deviate occurrence after wound closure and is a common burn sequela. The mainstay of scar treatment consists of a trifold approach: hydration,... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Hypertrophic scarring is a deviate occurrence after wound closure and is a common burn sequela. The mainstay of scar treatment consists of a trifold approach: hydration, UV-protection and the use of pressure garments with or without extra paddings or inlays to provide additional pressure. Pressure therapy has been reported to induce a state of hypoxia and to reduce the expression pattern of transforming growth factor-β1 (TGF-β1), therefore limiting the activity of fibroblasts. However, pressure therapy is said to be largely based on empirical evidence and a lot of controversy concerning the effectiveness still prevails. Many variables influencing its effectivity, such as adherence to treatment, wear time, wash frequency, number of available pressure garment sets and amount of pressure remain only partially understood. This systematic review aims to give a complete and comprehensive overview of the currently available clinical evidence of pressure therapy.
METHODS
A systematic search for articles concerning the use of pressure therapy in the treatment and prevention of scars was performed in 3 different databases (Pubmed, Embase, and Cochrane library) according to the PRISMA statement. Only case series, case-control studies, cohort studies, and RCTs were included. The qualitative assessment was done by 2 separate reviewers with the appropriate quality assessment tools.
RESULTS
The search yielded 1458 articles. After deduplication and removal of ineligible records, 1280 records were screened on title and abstract. Full text screening was done for 23 articles and ultimately 17 articles were included. Comparisons between pressure or no pressure, low vs high pressure, short vs long duration and early vs late start of treatment were investigated.
CONCLUSION
There is sufficient evidence that indicates the value of prophylactic and curative use of pressure therapy for scar management. The evidence suggests that pressure therapy is capable of improving scar color, thickness, pain, and scar quality in general. Evidence also recommends commencing pressure therapy prior to 2 months after injury, and using a minimal pressure of 20-25 mmHg. To be effective, treatment duration should be at least 12 months and even preferably up to 18-24 months. These findings were in line with the best evidence statement by Sharp et al. (2016).
Topics: Humans; Burns; Cicatrix, Hypertrophic; Treatment Outcome; Cohort Studies; Time Factors
PubMed: 36941176
DOI: 10.1016/j.burns.2023.03.007 -
Dental Materials : Official Publication... Dec 2013Large tooth substance losses are frequent in posterior teeth because of primary caries or aging restorations. Inlays and onlays are often the minimal invasive solution... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVES
Large tooth substance losses are frequent in posterior teeth because of primary caries or aging restorations. Inlays and onlays are often the minimal invasive solution in such cases, but the efficacy of the composite and ceramic materials used is unknown. We performed a systematic review of randomized controlled trials comparing the efficacy of composite and ceramic inlays or onlays.
DATA SOURCES
MEDLINE, Embase and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched without any restriction on date or language, as were references of eligible studies and ClinicalTrials.gov.
STUDY SELECTION
Eligible studies were randomized trials comparing the clinical efficacy of composite to ceramic inlays or onlays in adults with any clinical outcome for at least 6 months. From 172 records identified, we examined reports of 2 randomized controlled trials involving 138 inlays (no onlays evaluated) in 80 patients and exhibiting a high-risk of bias. Outcomes were clinical scores and major failures. The 3-year overall failure risk ratio was 2 [0.38-10.55] in favor of ceramic inlays although not statistically significant. The reported clinical scores (United States Public Health Services and Californian Dental Association) showed considerable heterogeneity between trials and could not be combined.
CONCLUSIONS
We have very limited evidence that ceramics perform better than composite material for inlays in the short term. However, this result may not be valid in the long term, and other trials are needed. Trials should follow Fédération dentaire internationale recommendations and enhance their methodology. Trials comparing composite and ceramic onlays are needed.
Topics: Acrylic Resins; Adult; Aged; Ceramics; Composite Resins; Dental Restoration, Permanent; Female; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Polyurethanes; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 24119328
DOI: 10.1016/j.dental.2013.09.009 -
The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry Sep 2023A consensus on whether a fully digital workflow can replace conventional methods of manufacturing partial-coverage restorations is lacking. (Review)
Review
STATEMENT OF PROBLEM
A consensus on whether a fully digital workflow can replace conventional methods of manufacturing partial-coverage restorations is lacking.
PURPOSE
The purpose of this systematic review was to evaluate the accuracy, fit, and clinical outcomes of inlay, onlay, overlay, and endocrown restorations obtained with both digital and conventional workflows.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
This study complied with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines and was registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews database (CRD42021258696). Studies evaluating the accuracy, fit, and clinical outcomes of inlay, onlay, overlay, and endocrown restorations obtained with digital and conventional workflows were included from 5 databases searched in November 2022. The Checklist for Reporting Randomized Clinical Studies (ROB 2) and the Checklist for Reporting In vitro Studies (CRIS guidelines) were used to assess the risk of bias.
RESULTS
Twenty-three studies were included in this review. Sixteen studies evaluated marginal and internal fit, 5 evaluated accuracy, 3 evaluated fracture resistance, and 1 evaluated long-term clinical performance. Although most studies reported acceptable clinical outcomes for both workflows, 11 studies showed better results with the conventional workflow, 10 with the digital workflow, and 2 reported that the outcomes of the workflows were similar.
CONCLUSIONS
Clinically acceptable values have been reported for the parameters evaluated in both digital and conventional workflows, and no consensus has been reached regarding the more efficient method.
PubMed: 37716898
DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2023.08.005 -
The International Journal of Oral &... 2017To systematically appraise the effectiveness/reliability of vertical ridge augmentation (VRA) in the atrophic mandible. Articles that addressed any one of the following... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
PURPOSE
To systematically appraise the effectiveness/reliability of vertical ridge augmentation (VRA) in the atrophic mandible. Articles that addressed any one of the following four areas were included in this study: amount of VRA, implant survival (ISR) and success rates (SSR) in the area of newly regenerated bone, complication rate during the bone augmentation procedure, and bone resorption.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
An electronic literature search was conducted by two independent reviewers in several databases, including MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Cochrane Oral Health Group Trials Register databases for articles reporting VRA in the atrophic mandible via distraction osteogenesis (DO), inlay block grafting (IBG), onlay block grafting (OBG), and guided bone regeneration (GBR). For meta-analysis, two primary (VRA and ISR [%]) and two secondary outcomes were studied (SSR [%] and vertical bone resorption [VBR] [%}). Additionally, for qualitative assessment, complications (ie, causes of failure) were further extracted and comprehensively described.
RESULTS
Overall, 73 full-text papers were evaluated. Of these, 52 articles fulfilled the inclusion criteria. The weight mean (WM) of VRA (± SD) was 4.49 ± 0.33 mm (95% CI: 3.85 to 5.14 mm). It was most notable that DO involved greater VRA than IBG, and thus, significantly higher than GBR and OBG. The technique significantly influenced the mean VRA obtained (P < .001). Nonetheless, no technique showed superiority in terms of ISR or SSR. VBR and complications were shown to be minimized for GBR.
CONCLUSION
If ~ 4 mm of VRA is needed, any technique in optimum local and systemic conditions should be equally reliable in the atrophic mandible. However, when greater VRA is needed, DO and IBG have demonstrated accuracy. By means of complication and VBR rates, GBR was shown to have the lowest. For ISR and SSR, no statistical differences existed among all techniques. Controlled studies are needed to examine the long-term peri-implant bone fate and the frequency of biologic complications in each technique applied for the vertical augmentation of the atrophied mandible.
Topics: Alveolar Bone Loss; Alveolar Ridge Augmentation; Bone Regeneration; Bone Resorption; Bone Transplantation; Dental Implantation, Endosseous; Dental Prosthesis Retention; Humans; Mandible; Osteogenesis, Distraction; Reproducibility of Results
PubMed: 28291849
DOI: 10.11607/jomi.4861 -
Journal of Clinical Medicine Nov 2019The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to determine the fracture resistance and survival rate of partial indirect restorations inlays, onlays, and... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to determine the fracture resistance and survival rate of partial indirect restorations inlays, onlays, and overlays fabricated using computer-aided design and computer-aided manufacturing (CAD-CAM) technology from ceramics, composite resin, resin nanoceramic, or hybrid ceramic and to analyze the influence of proximal box elevation on fracture resistance.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
This systematic review was based on guidelines proposed by the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA). An electronic search was conducted in databases US National Library of Medicine National Institutes of Health (PubMed), Scopus, Web of Science (WOS), and Embase. In vitro trials published during the last 10 years were included in the review.
RESULTS
Applying inclusion criteria based on the review's population, intervention, comparison, outcome (PICO) question, 13 articles were selected. Meta-analysis by restoration type estimated the fracture resistance of inlays to be 1923.45 Newtons (N); of onlays 1644 N and of overlays 1383.6 N. Meta-analysis by restoration material obtained an estimated fracture resistance for ceramic of 1529.5 N, for composite resin of 1600 Ne, for resin nanoceramic 2478.7 N, and hybrid ceramic 2108 N.
CONCLUSIONS
Resin nanoceramic inlays present significantly higher fracture resistance values. Proximal box elevation does not exert any influence on the fracture resistance of indirect restorations.
PubMed: 31717610
DOI: 10.3390/jcm8111932 -
Eye (London, England) Sep 2022Small-aperture corneal inlays, commonly known as KAMRA, are tiny optical devices inserted in the corneal stroma aiming to gain near vision in patients with presbyopia.... (Review)
Review
Small-aperture corneal inlays, commonly known as KAMRA, are tiny optical devices inserted in the corneal stroma aiming to gain near vision in patients with presbyopia. The purpose of this study was to systematically review case series of small-aperture corneal inlays performed in presbyopic emmetropic patients and to evaluate the visual outcomes of this procedure. This systematic review included 18 articles published between 2011 and 2018, overall studying 2724 eyes from 2691 participants. The mean longest follow-up was 19 months. Results showed that 78.5% of eyes reported an uncorrected near visual acuity of 20/32 or better and 90.50% of eyes achieved an uncorrected distance visual acuity of 20/25 or better. All patients experienced an improvement in uncorrected near visual acuity with a patient satisfaction ranging between 60% and 90%. The highlighted complications were keratocyte activation leading to corneal stromal haze, epithelial growth, iron deposits and poor distance visual acuity. Explantation was carried out in 101 eyes (3.7%) due to distance vision blurriness, development of epithelial microcysts, incorrect implant placement or hyperopic shift changes. KAMRA demonstrated high efficacy. However, safety and satisfaction rates remain unclear. Despite the low explantation rates reported in the literature, some complications were permanent. The results and conclusions should be taken with caution due to the conflict of interest stated in the reviewed articles.
Topics: Corneal Stroma; Humans; Presbyopia; Prospective Studies; Prostheses and Implants; Prosthesis Implantation; Refraction, Ocular; Treatment Outcome; Vision Disorders
PubMed: 35347289
DOI: 10.1038/s41433-022-02032-3