-
Clinical Oral Investigations Dec 2021The survival rate of indirect partial adhesive restorations on vital versus endodontically treated teeth is still controversial. The hypothesis is that there may be a... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVES
The survival rate of indirect partial adhesive restorations on vital versus endodontically treated teeth is still controversial. The hypothesis is that there may be a difference in the survival rate of partial adhesive restorations performed on non-vital teeth compared to vital teeth.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
This systematic review was conducted following the PRISMA guidelines. The considered clinical studies investigated the outcomes of adhesive inlays, onlays, and overlays conducted over the past 40 years, focusing on Kaplan-Meier survival curves to calculate the hazard ratio (primary objective) and the survival rate (secondary objective) between vital and non-vital teeth. The risk of bias was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Studies included in the review were identified through bibliographic research on electronic databases ("PubMed," "Scopus," "Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trial," and "Embase"). The K agreement between the two screening reviewers was evaluated.
RESULTS
A total of 55,793 records were identified on PubMed, Scopus, and other bibliographic sources, and after the application of the eligibility and inclusion criteria, eight articles were included for qualitative analysis and six for quantitative analysis. The meta-analysis of the primary and secondary outcomes demonstrated that hazard ratios (HR = 8.41, 95% CI: [4.50, 15.72]) and survival rates (OR = 3.24, 95% CI: [1.76, 5.82]) seemed more favorable for indirect partial adhesive restorations on vital teeth than for those on endodontically treated teeth.
CONCLUSIONS
Within the limits of this study, these findings suggest that the risk of failure of indirect partial adhesive restorations on endodontically treated teeth is higher than on vital teeth.
CLINICAL RELEVANCE
The use of partial adhesive restorations on vital and endodontically treated teeth showed different long-term clinical outcomes.
Topics: Composite Resins; Dental Restoration Failure; Dental Restoration, Permanent; Humans; Inlays; Kaplan-Meier Estimate; Mass Screening; Tooth, Nonvital
PubMed: 34628547
DOI: 10.1007/s00784-021-04187-x -
Dental Materials : Official Publication... Jan 2023This review study provides an overview of factors that influence the longevity of all types of direct resin composite restorations. (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVES
This review study provides an overview of factors that influence the longevity of all types of direct resin composite restorations.
METHODS
A systematic search was performed in PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science databases for articles reporting data from primary longitudinal clinical studies on composite longevity published 2011-2021. Prospective or retrospective studies with restorations in permanent dentition, with follow-up periods of at least 5 years were included.
RESULTS
In total, 33 articles were included with different study designs, practice settings, datasets, countries of origin, and sample sizes. Annual failure rates of restorations ranged from 0.08% to 6.3%. Survival rates varied between 23% and 97.7%, success rates varied between 43.4% and 98.7%. Secondary caries, fractures, and esthetic compromise were main reasons for failures. Risk factors for reduced restoration durability included patient-level factors (e.g., caries risk, parafunctional habits, number of check-ups per year, socioeconomic status), dentist factors (different operators, operator's experience), and tooth/restoration factors (endodontic treatment, type of tooth, number of restored surfaces). Patient gender and the composite used generally did not influence durability.
SIGNIFICANCE
A number of risk factors are involved in the longevity of composite restorations. Differences between composites play a minor role in durability, assuming that materials and techniques are properly applied by dentists. Patient factors play a major role in longevity. The decision-making process implemented by dentists relative to the diagnosis of aging or failed restorations may also affect the longevity of restorations. Clinicians should treat patients comprehensively and promote a healthy lifestyle to ensure longevity.
Topics: Humans; Composite Resins; Dental Caries; Dental Restoration Failure; Dental Restoration, Permanent
PubMed: 36494241
DOI: 10.1016/j.dental.2022.11.009 -
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 -
Operative Dentistry Jan 2021Composite resin or ceramic inlays, onlays, and overlays can achieve high long-term survival and success rates. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
CLINICAL RELEVANCE
Composite resin or ceramic inlays, onlays, and overlays can achieve high long-term survival and success rates.
Topics: Ceramics; Composite Resins; Dental Porcelain; Inlays
PubMed: 33882133
DOI: 10.2341/19-107-LIT -
Journal of Dentistry Oct 2016To evaluate the long-term clinical performance of direct versus indirect composite inlays/onlays in posterior teeth. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVE
To evaluate the long-term clinical performance of direct versus indirect composite inlays/onlays in posterior teeth.
DATA
Screening for inclusion eligibility, quality assessment of studies and data extraction was performed independently by two authors.
SOURCES
The electronic databases MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Oral Health Group's Trials Register and CENTRAL were searched (14.12.2015), with no restriction to publication date or language. We included only randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and evaluated them according to Cochrane risk of bias tool. The main outcome assessed was the restoration failure, determined by several clinical parameters.
STUDY SELECTION
Two studies concerning direct and indirect inlays (82 patients with 248 restorations) and one study for onlays (157 patients with 176 restorations) satisfied the inclusion criteria. Two trials, one of unclear and one of high risk of bias, could be mathematically combined. The meta-analysis indicated no statistically significant difference in the risk failure between direct and indirect inlays, after 5 years (RR: 1.54; 95% Cl: 0.42, 5.58; p=0.52) or 11 years of function (RR: 0.95; 95% Cl: 0.34, 2.63; p=0.92). Only one parameter, the marginal discoloration, slightly favored direct inlays after 11 years (RR: 0.41; 95% Cl: 0.17, 0.96; p=0.04). Only one study dealt with onlays; an overall 5-year survival of 87% (95% CI: 81-93%) was reported.
CONCLUSION
The difference of the two techniques did not reach statistical significance in order to recommend one technique over the other. The scarcity of primary studies support the need for further well-designed long-term studies in order to reach firm conclusions about both techniques.
CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE
Resin composite materials, placed directly or indirectly, exhibit a promising long-term clinical performance when rehabilitation of posterior teeth is needed. Although many years in clinical practice, the selection of the best treatment protocol still remains subjective. The available studies, and their synthesis, cannot provide reliable evidence in this field.
Topics: Composite Resins; Dental Care; Dental Restoration, Permanent; Humans; Inlays; Molar
PubMed: 27452342
DOI: 10.1016/j.jdent.2016.07.011 -
Dental Materials : Official Publication... Aug 2022The loss of the dental coronal portion following carious lesions or fractures leads to endodontic treatment with subsequent restoration to ensure correct anatomy and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVE
The loss of the dental coronal portion following carious lesions or fractures leads to endodontic treatment with subsequent restoration to ensure correct anatomy and function. Recently, partial adhesive restorations have been widely proposed to increase the survival rate of endodontically treated teeth. The primary purpose of this review is to assess the failure rate of indirect partial adhesive restorations on endodontically treated teeth (ETT), considering the follow-up period.
METHODS
The indications reported in the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis) were used to draft the present review. The study was constructed on PICO questions: population (patients who need indirect adhesive restorative treatment on endodontically treated teeth with onlay and overlay), intervention (onlay and overlay), control (patients with onlay and overlay on endodontically treated teeth) and outcome (failure rate and types of failure for onlay and overlay). The asked scientific question was: what are the failure rate and types of failure for adhesive indirect partial restorations on ETT?
RESULTS
The overall failure rate that emerges is 0.087 with a ratio of 121/1254, I 80 % p-value< 0.001. Moreover, by meta-regression with covariates the follow-up period reports a coefficient of 0.013 with a P-value< 0.001. In conclusion, the indirect partial restorations on endodontically treated teeth displayed overall acceptable outcomes in terms of success from 2 to 4 years after their placement with only 4.32 % of failure. Failures increase after 7 years up to 12-30 years with failure rates of approximatively 10.65 % and 20.94 %. The analysis of the included articles reporting the causes of restorations failures showed that 15.51 % of cases were related to the loss of dental element.
SIGNIFICANCE
Besides the survival rates of indirect adhesive restorations on endodontically treated posterior teeth, it was highlighted that the majority of failures appeared restorable. Thus, partial restorations seemed able to prevent the ETT tooth loss.
Topics: Composite Resins; Dental Restoration Failure; Dental Restoration, Permanent; Humans; Inlays; Prognosis; Tooth, Nonvital
PubMed: 35835608
DOI: 10.1016/j.dental.2022.06.018 -
The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry Mar 2020The restoration of extensively damaged endodontically treated teeth remains a challenge. The use of post-retained restorations has been questioned because of potential...
STATEMENT OF PROBLEM
The restoration of extensively damaged endodontically treated teeth remains a challenge. The use of post-retained restorations has been questioned because of potential tooth weakening.
PURPOSE
The purpose of this systematic review was to determine whether endocrowns are a reliable alternative to post-retained restorations for extensively damaged endodontically treated teeth and to determine which preparation design is most appropriate and which materials are best adapted for fabricating endocrowns.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
The literature that was analyzed covered endocrowns from 1995 to June 2018. A search was conducted for in vitro and clinical studies in English in 3 research databases (PubMed, Cochrane, and Scopus), and this was complemented by a manual search in the bibliographies of the studies found. Case reports were excluded.
RESULTS
A total of 41 publications consisting of 8 clinical studies and 33 in vitro studies were included in this systematic review. Several analysis parameters were identified: for the clinical studies, survival rate, failure modes, and clinical criteria; for the in vitro studies, fracture resistance, stress distribution, preparation criteria, and materials used.
CONCLUSIONS
Endocrowns are a reliable alternative to post-retained restorations for molars and seem promising for premolars. A certain preparation design and a rigorous adhesion protocol must be respected. Among the available materials, lithium disilicate glass-ceramic and nanofilled composite resin stand out.
Topics: Composite Resins; Crowns; Dental Porcelain; Dental Restoration Failure; Dental Stress Analysis; Humans; Materials Testing; Tooth, Nonvital
PubMed: 31353111
DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2019.04.009 -
Clinical Oral Investigations Jan 2019The purpose of this systematic review was to compare the clinical performance of bulk-fill resin composites with conventional resin composites used for direct... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVES
The purpose of this systematic review was to compare the clinical performance of bulk-fill resin composites with conventional resin composites used for direct restorations of posterior teeth.
METHODS
This review followed the PRISMA statement. This review was registered at PROSPERO (registration number CRD42016053436). A search of the scientific literature was performed by two independent reviewers using the PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, The Cochrane Library, and Web of Science databases from commencement until January 2018. The research question was "Do bulk-fill resin composites have a clinical performance comparable to conventional resin composites in posterior restorations?" Only studies evaluating class I and II direct restorations in permanent teeth with a follow-up period of at least 1 year were included. The RevMan 5 program was used for meta-analysis, calculating the relative risk (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) of the dichotomous outcome (restoration failure or success).
RESULTS
Ten articles were selected, comprising 941 analyzed restorations. The mean follow-up period was 33.6 months (12-72 months). No statistically significant differences in the failure rate were observed between conventional and base/flowable bulk-fill resin composites (p = 0.31; RR 1.49; 95% CI 0.69-3.25) or full-body/sculptable bulk-fill resin composites (p = 0.12; RR 1.89; 95% CI 0.84-4.24).
CONCLUSIONS
The present systematic review and meta-analysis indicate similar clinical performances of bulk-fill and conventional resin composites over a follow-up period of 12 to 72 months.
CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE
Based on the results of this study, the bulk-fill resin composites could be an alternative for direct restorations in posterior teeth. However, clinical trials of longer duration are required.
Topics: Composite Resins; Dental Restoration, Permanent; Dentition, Permanent; Humans; Time Factors
PubMed: 29594349
DOI: 10.1007/s00784-018-2429-7 -
Operative Dentistry Nov 2021The following PICO (Patient/Population, Intervention, Comparison, and Outcomes) question was proposed: "Are retention rates of composite resin restorations in noncarious... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
PURPOSE
The following PICO (Patient/Population, Intervention, Comparison, and Outcomes) question was proposed: "Are retention rates of composite resin restorations in noncarious cervical lesions (NCCLs) when using adhesives considered "gold standard" (OptiBond FL and Clearfil SE Bond) higher than those obtained with other adhesives brands"?
METHODS
A search was performed in February 2019 (updated in November 2019) in the PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS, BBO, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, Grey Literature, and IADR abstracts (1990-2018); unpublished and ongoing trial registries, dissertations, and theses were also searched. Only randomized clinical trials (RCTs) conducted in NCCLs that compared either OptiBond FL or Clearfil SE Bond adhesive with other commercially available adhesives were included. The risk of bias (RoB) was applied by using the Cochrane Collaboration tool. A meta-analysis was performed for retention rates at different follow-up times using a random effects model for both the adhesives. Heterogeneity was assessed with the Cochran Q test and I2 statistics. Grading of Recommendations: Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) assessed the quality of evidence.
RESULTS
After removal of duplicates and noneligible articles, 25 studies remained for qualitative synthesis, as one study was common to the two adhesives, of which 9 studies were used for the OptiBond FL meta-analysis and 14 for the Clearfil SE Bond meta-analysis. No significant differences were observed for retention rates in follow-up periods of 12-24 months (p=0.97), 36-48 months (p=0.72), or 108-156 months (p=0.73) for OptiBond FL; and for 12-24 months (p=0.10) and 36-48 months (p=0.17) for Clearfil SE Bond. A significant difference was only found for OptiBond FL at 60-96 months (p=0.02), but only three studies were included in this meta-analysis.
CONCLUSIONS
The evidence from available RCTs conducted in NCCLs that compared OptiBond FL or Clearfil SE Bond does not support the widespread concept that these adhesives are better than any other competitive brands available in the dental market.
Topics: Composite Resins; Dental Bonding; Dental Cements; Dental Restoration, Permanent; Dentin-Bonding Agents; Humans; Resin Cements
PubMed: 34919728
DOI: 10.2341/20-059-LIT -
Journal of Esthetic and Restorative... Jan 2022Several systematic literature reviews have assessed the scientific evidence on resin bonding protocols to conventional 3 mol% ytrria-stabilized zirconia (3Y-TZP)... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVES
Several systematic literature reviews have assessed the scientific evidence on resin bonding protocols to conventional 3 mol% ytrria-stabilized zirconia (3Y-TZP) ceramics. It has been widely discussed, however, that the differing composition and physical properties of new high-translucent zirconia generations (4Y-TZP and 5Y-TZP) may require alternative bonding materials and procedures. This paper reviewed in vitro studies on the success and durability of bonding protocols to high-translucent zirconia.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
A systematic search of PubMed and Cochrane Library for in vitro studies on bonding to new zirconia generations published until November 2020 was conducted and complemented by a manual search. Studies selected for review fulfilled the applied inclusion and exclusion criteria. The quality of the included studies was assessed with the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomized trials.
RESULTS
Of 629 screened articles, 18 were included in this review. They investigated different surface pretreatment methods, primers, resin cements, aging procedures, and bond strength test protocols. The limited number of the identified studies and the heterogeneity of the extracted data did not allow to conduct a meta-analysis.
CONCLUSIONS
The available evidence suggests that resin bonding protocols successfully applied to conventional zirconia are also the most successful for high-translucent zirconia. Airborne particle abrasion and special phosphate monomer-containing primers or composite resin cements provide long-term durable resin bonds.
CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE
Durable bonds can be established between high-translucent zirconia and resin cements. The bonding materials and procedures applied do not compromise their physical properties.
Topics: Ceramics; Dental Bonding; Dental Stress Analysis; Materials Testing; Resin Cements; Surface Properties; Zirconium
PubMed: 35072329
DOI: 10.1111/jerd.12876