-
The International Journal of Oral &... 2014To assess the survival outcomes and reported complications of screw- and cement-retained fixed reconstructions supported on dental implants. (Review)
Review
PURPOSE
To assess the survival outcomes and reported complications of screw- and cement-retained fixed reconstructions supported on dental implants.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
A Medline (PubMed), Embase, and Cochrane electronic database search from 2000 to September 2012 using MeSH and free-text terms was conducted. Selected inclusion and exclusion criteria guided the search. All studies were first reviewed by abstract and subsequently by full-text reading by two examiners independently. Data were extracted by two examiners and statistically analyzed using a random effects Poisson regression.
RESULTS
From 4,324 abstracts, 321 full-text articles were reviewed. Seventy-three articles were found to qualify for inclusion. Five-year survival rates of 96.03% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 93.85% to 97.43%) and 95.55% (95% CI: 92.96% to 97.19%) were calculated for cemented and screw-retained reconstructions, respectively (P = .69). Comparison of cement and screw retention showed no difference when grouped as single crowns (I-SC) (P = .10) or fixed partial dentures (I-FDP) (P = .49). The 5-year survival rate for screw-retained full-arch reconstructions was 96.71% (95% CI: 93.66% to 98.31). All-ceramic reconstruction material exhibited a significantly higher failure rate than porcelain-fused-to-metal (PFM) in cemented reconstructions (P = .01) but not when comparing screw-retained reconstructions (P = .66). Technical and biologic complications demonstrating a statistically significant difference included loss of retention (P ≤ .01), abutment loosening (P ≤ .01), porcelain fracture and/or chipping (P = .02), presence of fistula/suppuration (P ≤ .001), total technical events (P = .03), and total biologic events (P = .02).
CONCLUSIONS
Although no statistical difference was found between cement- and screw-retained reconstructions for survival or failure rates, screw-retained reconstructions exhibited fewer technical and biologic complications overall. There were no statistically significant differences between the failure rates of the different reconstruction types (I-SCs, I-FDPs, full-arch I-FDPs) or abutment materials (titanium, gold, ceramic). The failure rate of cemented reconstructions was not influenced by the choice of a specific cement, though cement type did influence loss of retention.
Topics: Bone Screws; Ceramics; Crowns; Dental Abutments; Dental Cements; Dental Implants; Dental Porcelain; Dental Prosthesis Retention; Dental Prosthesis, Implant-Supported; Dental Restoration Failure; Denture, Partial, Fixed; Humans
PubMed: 24660192
DOI: 10.11607/jomi.2014suppl.g2.1 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Dec 2017Fixed prosthodontic treatment (crowns, fixed dental prostheses (FDPs), complete arch prostheses) involves the use of several different materials to replace missing tooth... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Fixed prosthodontic treatment (crowns, fixed dental prostheses (FDPs), complete arch prostheses) involves the use of several different materials to replace missing tooth structure. Traditionally full metal or metal frameworks veneered with ceramic (metal-ceramic (MC)) have been used. In recent years several different metal-free systems have become available to clinicians and patients. In general, metal-free restorations should allow practitioners to better reproduce natural tooth colour, avoiding shortcomings of MC restorations. The comparative in service clinical performance of fixed prosthodontic treatments of different materials is unclear.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of metal-free materials for prosthodontic restorations compared to metal-ceramic or other conventional all-metal materials.
SEARCH METHODS
Cochrane Oral Health's Information Specialist searched the following databases: Cochrane Oral Health's Trials Register (searched 3 May 2017), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2017, Issue 4) in the Cochrane Library (searched 3 May 2017), MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to 3 May 2017), and Embase Ovid (1980 to 3 May 2017). The US National Institutes of Health Trials Registry (ClinicalTrials.gov) and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform were searched for ongoing trials (searched 3 May 2017). No restrictions were placed on the language or date of publication when searching the electronic databases.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in which the clinical performance of metal-free fixed prosthodontic restorations was compared with metal-ceramic (MC) or other conventional restorations in adult patients requiring prosthodontic treatment. RCTs in which the clinical performance of different kinds of metal-free systems were compared among themselves were also considered.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Screening of eligible studies, assessment of the methodological quality of the trials and data extraction were conducted independently and in duplicate. Trial authors were contacted for missing information. Available results for the outcomes of interest of the systematic review of the studies included were tabulated as they could not be included in a formal meta-analysis.
MAIN RESULTS
Nine trials involving a total of 448 participants were included. We judged two trials to be at unclear risk of bias and seven to be at high risk of bias. The majority of items of risk of bias were evaluated to be at unclear or high risk level in more than 50% of the included trials. Each trial except two was addressing a different type of intervention. All evidence was rated as being of very low quality due to problems with risk of bias and imprecision of results, the latter being due to very small sample sizes, low event rates, 95% confidence intervals including the possibility of benefit for both the test and control groups, or combinations of these problems. This means that we are very uncertain about all of the results presented in this review.One trial compared metal-free single crowns (full contour zirconia) to cast gold single crowns in 224 participants and found insufficient evidence of a difference in failure rate after one year, but after five years there was some evidence of a benefit for the gold crowns. There was insufficient evidence of a difference for crown complications at either time of assessment.One trial compared three-unit metal-free FDPs (lithium disilicate) to three-unit metal-ceramic FDPs in 37 participants. There was insufficient evidence of a difference in bridge failure at one and six years, but some evidence of a benefit for the lithium disilicate group in terms of bridge complications at six years. One trial compared zirconia-ceramic FDPs to metal-ceramic FDPs in 34 participants but found insufficient evidence of a difference in bridge failures (i.e. no failures in either treatment group), bridge complications or patients' aesthetic evaluation at any time of assessment up to three years.One trial compared metal-free cantilevered FDPs to metal-ceramic cantilevered FDPs in 21 participants. There was insufficient evidence of a difference for any primary outcome: bridge failures (i.e. no failures in either treatment group), bridge complications, or patients' aesthetic evaluation at any time of assessment up to three years.One trial compared metal-free implant-supported screw retained single crowns (zirconia veneered with feldspathic ceramic) to metal-ceramic implant-supported screw-retained single crowns in 20 participants. There was insufficient evidence of a difference for any primary outcome: crown failures (i.e. no failures in either treatment group), crown complications, or satisfaction/aesthetic evaluation at any time of assessment up to two years.Two trials compared metal-free implant abutments (zirconia) to metal implant abutments both supporting single crowns in 50 participants. There was insufficient evidence of a difference in abutment failure at one year.One trial compared metal-free implant-supported FDPs made of two different types of zirconia ceramic in 18 participants. There was insufficient evidence of a difference in failures at any time of assessment up to 10 years (i.e. no failures in either treatment group). There was some evidence of a benefit for the zirconia-toughened alumina group in terms of complications (chipping).One trial compared metal-free tooth-supported FDPs made with two different veneering techniques (pressed versus layered) in 40 participants. There was insufficient evidence of a difference for failures (i.e. no failures in either treatment group) or complications at any time of assessment up to three years.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is insufficient evidence to support or refute the effectiveness of metal-free materials for fixed prosthodontic treatment over metal-ceramic or other type of standard restorations. The overall quality of existing evidence was very low, therefore great caution should be exercised when generalising the results of the included trials. Until more evidence becomes available clinicians should continue to base decisions on which material to use for fixed prosthodontic treatment on their own clinical experience, whilst taking into consideration the individual circumstances and preferences of their patients. There is urgent need of properly designed RCTs.
Topics: Crowns; Dental Alloys; Dental Materials; Dental Restoration, Permanent; Humans; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Zirconium
PubMed: 29261853
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD009606.pub2 -
Clinical Oral Implants Research Sep 2023To compare and report on the performance of implant-supported fixed dental prostheses (iFDPs) fabricated using additive (AM) or subtractive (SM) manufacturing. (Review)
Review
AIM
To compare and report on the performance of implant-supported fixed dental prostheses (iFDPs) fabricated using additive (AM) or subtractive (SM) manufacturing.
METHODS
An electronic search was conducted (Medline, Embase, Cochrane Central, Epistemonikos, clinical trials registries) with a focused PICO question: In partially edentulous patients with missing single (or multiple) teeth undergoing dental implant therapy (P), do AM iFDPs (I) compared to SM iFDPs (C) result in improved clinical performance (O)? Included were studies comparing AM to SM iFDPs (randomized clinical trials, prospective/retrospective clinical studies, case series, in vitro studies).
RESULTS
Of 2'184 citations, no clinical study met the inclusion criteria, whereas six in vitro studies proved to be eligible. Due to the lack of clinical studies and considerable heterogeneity across the studies, no meta-analysis could be performed. AM iFDPs were made of zirconia and polymers. For SM iFDPs, zirconia, lithium disilicate, resin-modified ceramics and different types of polymer-based materials were used. Performance was evaluated by assessing marginal and internal discrepancies and mechanical properties (fracture loads, bending moments). Three of the included studies examined the marginal and internal discrepancies of interim or definitive iFDPs, while four examined mechanical properties. Based on marginal and internal discrepancies as well as the mechanical properties of AM and SM iFDPs, the studies revealed inconclusive results.
CONCLUSION
Despite the development of AM and the comprehensive search, there is very limited data available on the performance of AM iFDPs and their comparison to SM techniques. Therefore, the clinical performance of iFDPs by AM remains to be elucidated.
Topics: Humans; Prospective Studies; Retrospective Studies; Dental Implants; Ceramics; Polymers
PubMed: 37750533
DOI: 10.1111/clr.14085 -
Dental Materials : Official Publication... Oct 2015In this study the literature was systematically reviewed to investigate the clinical longevity of anterior composite restorations. (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVE
In this study the literature was systematically reviewed to investigate the clinical longevity of anterior composite restorations.
DATA
Clinical studies investigating the survival of anterior light-cured composite restorations with at least three years of follow-up were screened and main reasons associated with restoration failure were registered.
SOURCES
PubMed, Scopus, and Cochrane databases were searched without restriction on date or language. Reference lists of eligible studies were hand-searched. The grey literature search was not made systematically.
STUDY SELECTION
Two reviewers screened titles and/or abstracts of 2273 unique studies. In total, 41 studies were selected for full-text reading, from which 17 were included in the qualitative synthesis. The included studies evaluated the clinical performance of Class III and/or IV restorations (10 studies), which were placed due to caries, fracture, or replaced old restorations; veneers and full-coverage restorations placed for aesthetic reasons (five studies); and restorations in worn teeth (two studies). Annual failure rates (AFRs) were calculated for each study.
CONCLUSIONS
In total, 1821 restorations were evaluated and the total failure rate was 24.1%. AFRs varied from 0 to 4.1% and survival rates varied from 53.4% to 100%. Class III restorations generally had lower AFRs than the other restorations. Few studies addressed factors associated with failure, which included adhesive technique, composite resin, retreatment risk, and time required to build-up the restoration. Fracture of tooth/restoration was the most common reason for failure, whereas failures related to aesthetic qualities (color, anatomical form, surface stain) were more frequent when restorations were placed for aesthetic reasons.
Topics: Composite Resins; Dental Materials; Dental Restoration Failure; Dental Restoration, Permanent; Humans
PubMed: 26303655
DOI: 10.1016/j.dental.2015.07.005 -
Dental Materials : Official Publication... May 2022The present review is an update of a systematic review that has been published in 2012. Meanwhile, many new clinical trials on resin composites had been published. New... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVE
The present review is an update of a systematic review that has been published in 2012. Meanwhile, many new clinical trials on resin composites had been published. New materials such as bulk fill resin composites and new glass-ionomer (GIC) based materials had been introduced. The focus of this review was to evaluate the longevity in relation to the material class and adhesive class, while adjusting for a possible study bias effect.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
The database PUBMED/SCOPUS were searched for clinical trials on posterior resin composites. The inclusion criteria were: (1) studies published between 2000 and 2019, (2) prospective clinical trial with at least 2 years of observation; (2) minimal number of restorations at last recall = 20; (3) report on drop-out rate; (4) report of operative technique and used materials; (5) utilisation of Ryge, modified Ryge or FDI evaluation criteria. The bias of each study was assessed by two independent reviewers using Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. For the statistical analysis, linear mixed models fitted on the individual data recorded along time have been used with random effects to account for study, patients and experiment effects. P-values smaller than 0.05 were considered significant.
RESULTS
Of the 423 clinical trials, 62 studies (including 110 experiments) met the inclusion criteria. Material class was divided according to the composite filler in microhybrid (39 experiments/2807 restorations), nanohybrid (24 experiments/1254 restorations), and hybrid (22 experiments/1255 restorations). So-called bulk fill materials were treated as a separate category (9 experiments/506 restorations) as were the GIC (11 experiments/2121 restorations) and the compomer materials (5 experiments/238 restorations). Only one study (1.6%) had low risk of bias, 42 (67.7%) were assessed to have unclear risk of bias and 19 (30.6%) had a high risk of bias. In 52.3% of the studies Class II and Class I restorations had been placed. After 10 years, the survival rate for resin composite restorations dropped to about 85-90% with no significant difference between hybrid, microhybrid and nao-hybrid resin materials. The main reasons for restoration replacement were bulk fractures and wear, which accounted for a about 70% of replacements. Caries at the restorative margins accounted for about 20% of the replacements, and retention loss, inacceptable colour match or marginal integrity, endodontic treatment or cusp fracture for about 10% of the replacements of the resin composite restorations. For compomer and GIC restorations the mean overall survival rate was about 80% after 6 years. For GIC, the main reasons for failure were substantial loss of anatomical contour along with loss of proximal contacts and retention loss. Mainly fractures reduced the longevity of compomers restorations. Also, there was no statistically significant difference between hybrid, micro-hybrid, nano-hybrid and bulk fill resin composites with regard to colour match, surface texture, material fractures, and anatomical form.
CONCLUSIONS
Posterior resin composite restorations that were placed with the enamel etch technique showed the best overall performance; the longevity was not significantly influenced by the filler type or viscosity of resin composite material. With regard to colour match, surface texture and anatomical form, nanohybrid resins were not significantly superior to hybrid or microhybrid resin composites. Compomer and GIC restorations demonstrated considerable shortcomings and had a significant shorter longevity.
Topics: Compomers; Composite Resins; Dental Caries; Dental Restoration, Permanent; Glass Ionomer Cements; Humans; Prospective Studies; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 35221127
DOI: 10.1016/j.dental.2021.10.018 -
The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry Apr 2024When restoring endodontically treated teeth, a post system is indicated to retain a core. Clinicians can choose from different post materials and types. However, the... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
STATEMENT OF PROBLEM
When restoring endodontically treated teeth, a post system is indicated to retain a core. Clinicians can choose from different post materials and types. However, the literature is inconclusive on the long-term clinical performance of available post systems.
PURPOSE
The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to analyze the survival and failure rates of endodontically treated teeth restored either with glass-fiber-reinforced or metal posts.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
The research question was formulated by following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines by using the Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcome, Study Type (PICOS) tool. Medline (PubMed), Embase, and Scopus searches complemented by manual search were performed for randomized controlled clinical trials with a follow-up of at least 2 years. Two independent authors performed screening and data extraction of the articles. Meta-analyses were performed with the RevMan software program. Homogeneity was checked by using chi and I tests, and random-effects meta-analyses were applied. Odds ratio and 95% confidence interval were calculated (α=.05). The publication bias was evaluated by using funnel plots and the Begg and Egger tests.
RESULTS
A total of 184 studies were retrieved through the electronic searches, and an additional 4 through the hand search. After title- and abstract-level exclusion, 23 studies remained for full-text analyses, of which 7 were selected for data extraction. Meta-analyses revealed an overall survival rate of 92.8% for endodontically treated teeth restored with glass-fiber-reinforced posts compared with 78.1% of those restored with metal posts. No statistically significant difference (P>.05) was found in the survival, success, or failure rates.
CONCLUSIONS
No statistically significant differences were found between the survival and failure rates of endodontically treated teeth restored either with glass-fiber-reinforced or metal posts. The overall survival rate was 92.8% for glass fiber posts and 78.1% for metal posts. Both are reliable materials when a significant amount of coronal tooth structure is missing and treatment with a post is indicated.
Topics: Humans; Post and Core Technique; Tooth, Nonvital; Survival Rate; Glass; Metals; Tooth Fractures; Composite Resins
PubMed: 35430048
DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2022.01.003 -
Clinical Oral Implants Research Mar 2018The goal of Working Group 1 at the 2nd Consensus Meeting of the Osteology Foundation was to comprehensively assess the effects of soft tissue augmentation procedures on... (Review)
Review
Evidence-based knowledge on the aesthetics and maintenance of peri-implant soft tissues: Osteology Foundation Consensus Report Part 1-Effects of soft tissue augmentation procedures on the maintenance of peri-implant soft tissue health.
OBJECTIVES
The goal of Working Group 1 at the 2nd Consensus Meeting of the Osteology Foundation was to comprehensively assess the effects of soft tissue augmentation procedures on peri-implant health or disease.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
A systematic review and meta-analysis on the effects of soft tissue augmentation procedures included a total of 10 studies (mucosal thickness: n = 6; keratinized tissue: n = 4). Consensus statements, clinical recommendations, and implications for future research were based on structured group discussions and a plenary session approval.
RESULTS
Soft tissue grafting to increase the width of keratinized tissue around implants was associated with greater reductions in gingival and plaque indices when compared to non-augmented sites. Statistically significant differences were noted for final marginal bone levels in favor of an apically positioned flap plus autogenous graft vs. all standard-of-care control treatments investigated. Soft tissue grafting (i.e., autogenous connective tissue) to increase the mucosal thickness around implants in the aesthetic zone was associated with significantly less marginal bone loss over time, but no significant changes in bleeding on probing, probing depths, or plaque scores when compared to sites without grafting.
CONCLUSIONS
The limited evidence available supports the use of soft tissue augmentation procedures to promote peri-implant health.
Topics: Alveolar Ridge Augmentation; Connective Tissue; Consensus; Dental Implantation; Dental Implantation, Endosseous; Dental Implants; Gingiva; Humans; Jaw, Edentulous, Partially; Meta-Analysis as Topic; Mucous Membrane; Osteology; Surgical Flaps
PubMed: 29498127
DOI: 10.1111/clr.13110 -
Clinical and Experimental Dental... Dec 2022This systematic review aims to investigate the effect of different preparation designs on the marginal fit and fracture strength of ceramic occlusal veneers. (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVES
This systematic review aims to investigate the effect of different preparation designs on the marginal fit and fracture strength of ceramic occlusal veneers.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Based on the PICO question and the search terms, an electronic search was performed in Google Scholar, PubMed (MEDLINE), Scopus, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Science Direct, Wiley, Ovid, and SAGE for articles published up to July 2022. After including English in vitro studies that evaluated posterior ceramic occlusal overlays at the posterior with ceramic restorations by following the PRISMA statement, the extracted data was tabulated. The methodological quality of the included studies was evaluated. Risk of bias assessment was done independently by two authors using the modified MINORS scale.
RESULTS
About 3138 search results were screened, of which 22 were selected due to their titles. Twenty-one full-text articles were assessed for eligibility. Seventeen in-vitro studies were finalized for the extraction of quantitative data. All 17 articles had a low risk of bias and were retained. The influencing items for evaluating the research were different in most studies; therefore, qualitative synthesis of the results was feasible. They generally included preparation design, material thickness, depth of preparation in the tooth, internal divergence angle, and finish line. Meta-analysis was not done due to heterogeneity of preparation types and evaluation methods. Results revealed that fracture resistance of occlusal veneers is higher than normal mastication force, and it is sufficient to prepare the occlusal surface, use a self-etching primer for bonding, and an acceptable minimum ceramic thickness. The marginal discrepancy of occlusal veneers is clinically acceptable. However, this systematic review faces some limitations due to the lack of in vivo studies, different preparation designs in included studies, different follow-ups, and lack of comprehensive explanations in articles.
CONCLUSIONS
The preparation design of occlusal veneers influences both marginal adaptation and fracture resistance. Various preparation designs are proven to have clinically acceptable fracture strength and marginal adaptation.
Topics: Dental Porcelain; Dental Veneers; Flexural Strength; Dental Stress Analysis; Materials Testing; Ceramics
PubMed: 36062841
DOI: 10.1002/cre2.653 -
Stomatologija 2020A significant loss of dental structures during endodontic treatment increases the probability of tooth cracks, fractures or even tooth loss. The objective of this...
INTRODUCTION
A significant loss of dental structures during endodontic treatment increases the probability of tooth cracks, fractures or even tooth loss. The objective of this systematic review was to assess the influence of temporary filling material on dental cracks and fractures during endodontic treatment.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
The literature was digitally searched for in vivo and in vitro studies using Pubmed, ScienceDirect and Wiley Online Library databases. A total of 38 potentially relevant records were identified in the literature search after duplicates were removed. After screening, full-text analysis of selected studies was done. Two reviewers independently selected the studies, extracted the data which was structured and summarized.
RESULTS
Five publications met the selection criteria. Ten temporary filling materials were evaluated in this review. The analysis demonstrated that non-eugenol chemically hardening temporary filling materials significantly increase filling and dental fractures and have the lowest fracture and tooth fracture resistance. Glass ionomer cements (GIC) presented the higher hermetic, tightness and fracture resistance features.
CONCLUSIONS
A temporary filling material during endodontic treatment may influence dental cracks and fractures. Highest impact for dental cracks and fractures has ready-to-use, eugenol-free temporary filling materials, whereas the least impact has GIC.
Topics: Glass Ionomer Cements; Humans; Root Canal Filling Materials; Tooth Fractures
PubMed: 33821811
DOI: No ID Found -
Journal of Dentistry Jan 2017To determine if resin infiltration is an effective treatment for improving the esthetic appearance of tooth discoloration resulting from development defects of enamel... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVES
To determine if resin infiltration is an effective treatment for improving the esthetic appearance of tooth discoloration resulting from development defects of enamel (EDD) and white spot lesions (WSL) by means of a systematic review.
DATA SOURCES
A comprehensive search was performed in PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, LILACS, BBO Library, Cochrane Library, and SIGLE, as well as in the abstracts of IADR conference, and in the clinical trials registry.
STUDY SELECTION
Clinical studies in patients with whitish tooth discoloration, in which the resin infiltration technique was applied, were included. Color masking was the primary outcome. The methodological quality and risk of biases of included papers was assessed using MINORS criteria for non-randomized (NRS) comparative studies and Cochrane Collaboration for randomized clinical trials (RCT).
RESULTS
From a total of 2930 articles, 17 were assessed for eligibility and 11 remained in the qualitative synthesis. Four NRS and seven RCT studies were selected, the latter consisting of four full-text studies and three conference abstracts. Two studies were excluded from the quality assessment, due to overlapping results. The number of participants (treated teeth) ranged from 18 to 21 (38-74) in the NRS, and 20-83 (20-231) in the RCT studies. Post-orthodontic WSL were the most frequent treated lesions. Initial condition was used as control in the NR studies. In the RCT, resin infiltration was compared to non treatment, remineralization, or bleaching. Overall, partial or complete color masking of affected teeth was reported immediately after resin infiltration. Only two studies followed original outcomes up to one year and reported maintenance of original color masking. Two NR studies were assessed as "moderate" and one as "high" quality. Two RCT were classified as "low" risk of bias in the chosen key domains. The remaining four studies were considered "unclear" or "high" risk of bias.
CONCLUSION
Although the partial or total masking effect of enamel whitish discoloration has been shown with resin infiltration, there is no strong evidence to support this technique based on the present clinical studies.
CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE
Enamel whitish discolorations in esthetically compromised areas are clinically undesirable. Minimally invasive approaches used as attempts to minimize the discoloration include the resin infiltration technique. The evidence for clinical recommendation of this technique is not strong, thus, further RCT studies with long-term follow-ups should be conducted.
Topics: Databases, Factual; Dental Caries; Dental Enamel; Dental Materials; Dental Restoration, Permanent; Esthetics, Dental; Humans; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Resins, Synthetic; Tooth Bleaching; Tooth Discoloration; Tooth Diseases; Tooth Remineralization; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 27793705
DOI: 10.1016/j.jdent.2016.10.010