-
Dental Materials : Official Publication... Jun 2024To compare the performance of Cention-N® with direct restorative materials used at the daily practice (e.g., resin-based composites/RBC, glass ionomer cements/GIC,... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVES
To compare the performance of Cention-N® with direct restorative materials used at the daily practice (e.g., resin-based composites/RBC, glass ionomer cements/GIC, bioactive resins, silver amalgam) via a systematic review study.
METHODS
The review followed the PRISMA-NMA recommendations, and the protocol of the review was published at osf.io/ybde8. The search was conducted in PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, Web of Science, Embase, Lilacs, and SciELO databases, as well as in the grey literature (Open Grey, Proquest, and Periódicos CAPES). Studies with an in vitro experimental design evaluating the characteristics and properties of Cention-N in comparison to other restorative materials were included. The risk of bias of included studies was assessed using the RoBDEMAT tool, and meta-analyses were conducted using Review Manager 5.4 and MetaInsight V3 tools.
RESULTS
A total of 85 studies were included in the review, from which 79 were meta-analyzed. Several characteristics of direct restorative materials were analyzed, including physical (color change, degree of conversion, hardness, microleakage, polymerization rate, roughness, water solubility, water sorption), mechanical (bond strength to dentin, compressive strength, diametral tensile strength, flexural modulus, flexural strength, load-to-fracture, wear), and biological (alkalinizing effect, antibacterial activity, calcium and fluoride release) properties.
SIGNIFICANCE
Cention-N presented similar physico-mechanical properties compared to RBCs, but a stronger behavior than GICs. Despite the Alkasite nature of Cention-N, GICs may still demonstrate the greatest fluoride releasing ability from all direct restorative materials. This review confirmed the adequate behavior of Cention-N when compared to several other more traditionally used materials, confirming its applicability for the permanent restoration of decayed or fractured teeth.
PubMed: 38880724
DOI: 10.1016/j.dental.2024.06.014 -
Supportive Care in Cancer : Official... May 2024This study is to conduct a comprehensive scoping review to map scientific evidence and clarify concepts regarding the commonly recommended preventive and restorative... (Review)
Review
PURPOSE
This study is to conduct a comprehensive scoping review to map scientific evidence and clarify concepts regarding the commonly recommended preventive and restorative dental treatments for patients diagnosed with head and neck cancer (HNC) and subjected to radiotherapy.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
This systematic scoping review was performed under the PRISMA-ScR guidelines. The study's experimental design was registered in the Open Science Framework. In vitro studies that evaluated preventive and restorative dental treatment over 50 Gy radiation doses were included. The search was conducted in November 2023 in five electronic databases (PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and Embase) without language or date restriction. A search strategy was applied based on keywords, MeSh terms, or synonyms. A descriptive analysis was conducted.
RESULTS
A total of 49 studies, out of 3679 original articles identified, were included and reviewed. Of the included studies, three evaluated saliva stimulants and 35 evaluated fluoride-based preventive materials: gel (n = 18) toothpaste (n = 11) mouth rinse (n = 8) and varnish (n = 5) while 14 evaluated restorative materials: resin composite (n = 12) glass ionomer cement (n = 6) and amalgam (n = 1) Of those studies, 36 were clinical trials and 13 were in vitro studies.
CONCLUSION
Fluoride gel was the most frequently recommended preventive material for preventing radiation caries with supportive clinical evidence. Resin composite and glass ionomer were the most frequently used restorative materials, respectively. However, there is not yet clinical evidence to support the use of resin composite in irradiated teeth.
Topics: Humans; Dental Caries; Head and Neck Neoplasms; Dental Restoration, Permanent
PubMed: 38702458
DOI: 10.1007/s00520-024-08522-2 -
Dental Materials : Official Publication... Dec 2023The objective is to compare the preventive effect on secondary caries of glass ionomer cement (GIC) restorations with amalgam or resin-composite restorations. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVE
The objective is to compare the preventive effect on secondary caries of glass ionomer cement (GIC) restorations with amalgam or resin-composite restorations.
METHODS
Two independent researchers conducted a systematic search of English publications in PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane and Scopus. They selected randomized clinical trials comparing secondary caries incidences around GIC restorations (conventional GIC or resin-modified GIC) with amalgam or resin-composite restorations. Meta-analysis of the secondary-caries incidences with risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence interval (95% CI) as the effect measure was performed.
RESULTS
This review included 64 studies. These studies included 8310 GIC restorations and 5857 amalgam or resin-composite restorations with a follow-up period from 1 to 10 years. Twenty-one studies with 4807 restorations on primary teeth and thirty-eight studies with 4885 restorations on permanent teeth were eligible for meta-analysis. The GIC restorations had a lower secondary caries incidence compared with amalgam restorations in both primary dentition [RR= 0.55, 95% CI:0.41-0.72] and permanent dentition [RR= 0.20, 95% CI:0.11-0.38]. GIC restorations showed similar secondary caries incidence compared with resin-composite restorations in primary dentition [RR= 0.92, 95% CI:0.77-1.10] and permanent dentition [RR= 0.77, 95% CI:0.39-1.51]. Conventional GIC restorations showed similar secondary caries incidence compared with resin-modified GIC-restored teeth in both primary dentition [RR= 1.12, 95% CI:0.67-1.87] and permanent dentition [RR= 1.63, 95% CI:0.34-7.84].
CONCLUSIONS
GIC restorations showed a superior preventive effect against secondary caries compared to amalgam restorations, and a similar preventive effect against secondary caries compared to resin-composite restorations in both primary and permanent teeth. [PROSPERO Registration ID: CRD42022380959].
Topics: Humans; Dental Restoration, Permanent; Glass Ionomer Cements; Dental Caries Susceptibility; Dental Caries; Composite Resins; Dental Amalgam
PubMed: 37838608
DOI: 10.1016/j.dental.2023.10.008 -
Journal of Dentistry Aug 2023To systematically assess aspects of teaching of posterior composite restorations (PCRs) in permanent teeth in dental schools. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVES
To systematically assess aspects of teaching of posterior composite restorations (PCRs) in permanent teeth in dental schools.
STUDY SELECTION
Quantitative studies reporting on dental schools' teaching regarding the placement of PCRs in permanent teeth. Random-effects meta-analyses and meta-regressions were performed. Risk of bias was assessed based on the Medical Education Research Study Quality Instrument (MERSQI).
SOURCES
Electronic databases (MEDLINE via PubMed, EMBASE via Ovid, Web of Science, and Scopus) were searched in January 2023.
DATA
Forty sources reporting on 34 studies having surveyed 1,286 dental schools were included. Overall, 92.7% (95%-CI: 88.2-95.5) of dental schools reported to teach PCRs. PCRs in three-surface Class II cavities are taught by 82.0% (95%-CI: 70.4-89.7). The mandatory use of liners in deep cavities is taught by 78.3% (95%-CI: 68.9-85.5), and 44.0% (95%-CI: 34.3-54.2) reported to teach bulk-fill composites. While most posterior restorations placed by students were composites (56.1%; 95%-CI: 46.0-65.8), 94.7% (95%-CI: 86.6-98.0) of dental schools (still) teach posterior amalgam restorations. The proportion of dental schools teaching PCRs in three-surface Class II cavities increased and the mean proportion of PCRs among all posterior restorations increased over time (p≤0.003).
CONCLUSIONS
The teaching of PCRs in dental schools around the world reflects the increased use of resin composite in clinical practice, with students in countries where dental amalgam continues to be used, placing more posterior composites than restorations of dental amalgam. The teaching of PCRs, which is anticipated to increase, will continue to be refined with further developments in adhesive materials, devices, instrumentation, and techniques.
CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE
Graduating dentists can be expected to be familiar with the use of resin composites for the restoration of posterior teeth.
Topics: Humans; Dental Restoration, Permanent; Dental Amalgam; Dental Cavity Preparation; Composite Resins; Dental Caries; Students; Teaching
PubMed: 37336355
DOI: 10.1016/j.jdent.2023.104589 -
BMC Oral Health Jun 2023This systematic review and network meta-analysis aimed to compare the clinical efficacy of bioactive and conventional restorative materials in controlling secondary... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
This systematic review and network meta-analysis aimed to compare the clinical efficacy of bioactive and conventional restorative materials in controlling secondary caries (SC) and to provide a classification of these materials according to their effectiveness.
METHODS
A search was performed in Pubmed, Web of Science, Embase, BBO, Lilacs, Cochrane Library, Scopus, IBECS and gray literature. Clinical trials were included, with no language or publication date limitations. Paired and network meta-analyses were performed with random-effects models, comparing treatments of interest and classifying them according to effectiveness in the permanent and deciduous dentition and at 1-year or 2/more years of follow-up. The risk of bias and certainty of evidence were evaluated.
RESULTS
Sixty-two studies were included in the qualitative syntheses and 39 in the quantitative ones. In permanent teeth, resin composite (RC) (RR = 2.00; 95%CI = 1.10, 3.64) and amalgam (AAG) (RR = 1.79; 95%CI = 1.04, 3.09) showed a higher risk of SC than Glass Ionomer Cement (GIC). In the deciduous teeth, however, a higher risk of SC was observed with RC than with AAG (RR = 2.46; 95%CI = 1.42, 4.27) and in GIC when compared to Resin-Modified Glass Ionomer Cement (RMGIC = 1.79; 95%CI = 1.04, 3.09). Most randomized clinical trials studies showed low or moderate risk of bias.
CONCLUSION
There is a difference between bioactive restorative materials for SC control, with GIC being more effective in the permanent teeth and the RMGIC in the deciduous teeth. Bioactive restorative materials can be adjuvants in the control of SC in patients at high risk for caries.
Topics: Humans; Network Meta-Analysis; Dental Caries Susceptibility; Dental Materials; Dental Caries; Composite Resins; Treatment Outcome; Glass Ionomer Cements; Dental Restoration, Permanent
PubMed: 37322456
DOI: 10.1186/s12903-023-03110-y -
Journal of the American Dental... Feb 2023The goal of restoring caries lesions is to protect the pulp, prevent progression of the disease process, and restore the form and function of the tooth. The purpose of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
The goal of restoring caries lesions is to protect the pulp, prevent progression of the disease process, and restore the form and function of the tooth. The purpose of this systematic review was to determine the effect of different direct restorative materials for treating cavitated caries lesions on anterior and posterior primary and permanent teeth.
TYPE OF STUDIES REVIEWED
The authors included parallel and split-mouth randomized controlled trials comparing the effectiveness of direct restorative materials commercially available in the United States placed in vital, nonendodontically treated primary and permanent teeth. Pairs of reviewers independently conducted study selection, data extraction, and assessments of risk of bias and certainty of the evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach. The authors conducted pair-wise meta-analyses to summarize the evidence and calculated measures of association and their 95% CIs.
RESULTS
Thirty-eight randomized controlled trials were eligible for analysis, which included data on Class I and Class II restorations on primary teeth and Class I, Class II, Class III, Class V, and root surface restorations on permanent teeth. Included studies assessed the effect of amalgam, resin composite, compomer, conventional glass ionomer cement, resin-modified glass isomer cement, and preformed metal crowns. Moderate to very low certainty evidence suggested varying levels of effectiveness across restorative materials.
CONCLUSIONS AND PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS
Owing to a relatively low event rate across various outcomes indicating restoration failure, there was limited evidence to support important differences between direct restorative materials used in practice.
Topics: United States; Humans; Dental Restoration, Permanent; American Dental Association; Dental Caries Susceptibility; Dental Materials; Dental Caries; Composite Resins; Tooth, Deciduous; Glass Ionomer Cements
PubMed: 36610925
DOI: 10.1016/j.adaj.2022.09.012 -
Revista Brasileira de Ginecologia E... Dec 2022The present review aimed to synthesize the evidence regarding mercury (Hg) exposure and hypertensive disorders of pregnancy (HDP).
OBJECTIVE
The present review aimed to synthesize the evidence regarding mercury (Hg) exposure and hypertensive disorders of pregnancy (HDP).
DATA SOURCES
The PubMed, BVS/LILACS, SciELO and UFRJ's Pantheon Digital Library databases were systematically searched through June 2021.
STUDY SELECTION
Observational analytical articles, written in English, Spanish, or Portuguese, without time restriction.
DATA COLLECTION
We followed the PICOS strategy, and the methodological quality was assessed using the Downs and Black checklist.
DATA SYNTHESIS
We retrieved 77 articles, of which 6 met the review criteria. They comprised 4,848 participants, of which 809 (16.7%) had HDP and 4,724 (97.4%) were environmentally exposed to Hg (fish consumption and dental amalgam). Mercury biomarkers evaluated were blood (four studies) and urine (two studies). Two studies found a positive association between Hg and HDP in the group with more exposure, and the other four did not present it. The quality assessment revealed three satisfactory and three good-rated studies (mean: 19.3 ± 1.6 out 28 points). The absence or no proper adjustment for negative confounding factor, such as fish consumption, was observed in five studies.
CONCLUSION
We retrieved only six studies, although Hg is a widespread toxic metal and pregnancy is a period of heightened susceptibility to environmental threats and cardiovascular risk. Overall, our review showed mixed results, with two studies reporting a positive association in the group with more exposure. However, due to the importance of the subject, additional studies are needed to elucidate the effects of Hg on HDP, with particular attention to adjusting negative confounding.
Topics: Humans; Pregnancy; Female; Animals; Mercury; Hypertension, Pregnancy-Induced; Maternal Exposure; Biomarkers
PubMed: 36580940
DOI: 10.1055/s-0042-1760215 -
European Archives of Paediatric... Oct 2022To systematically review the clinical performance of restorative materials after pulp therapy of carious primary teeth. It is part 2 of a systematic review on the...
PURPOSE
To systematically review the clinical performance of restorative materials after pulp therapy of carious primary teeth. It is part 2 of a systematic review on the clinical effectiveness of restorative materials for the management of carious primary teeth supporting the European Academy of Paediatric Dentistry (EAPD) guideline development.
METHODS
Four electronic databases were systematically searched up to December 28th, 2020. Randomised controlled clinical trials (RCTs) on restorative materials for the restoration of carious primary teeth after pulp therapy were included. Failure rate, annual failure rate (AFR) and reasons for failure were recorded. Studies were sorted by restorative materials. The Cochrane Risk of bias tool for randomised trials (RoB 2.0) was used for quality assessment.
RESULTS
After identification of 1685 articles and screening of 41 papers from EAPD review group 1, 5 RCTs were included. Restored primary molars with pulpotomy presented the following AFRs: composite resin (CR) 0%, preformed metal crowns (PMCs) 2.4-2.5%, resin-modified glass-ionomer cement combined with CR 3.8%, compomer 8.9%, and amalgam 14.3%. Maxillary primary incisors receiving pulpectomy exhibited AFRs of 0-2.3% for composite strip crowns (CSCs) depending on the post chosen. Reasons for failure were secondary caries, poor marginal adaptation, loss of retention and fracture of restoration. All studies were classified as high risk of bias. Meta-analyses were not feasible given the clinical/methodological heterogeneity amongst studies.
CONCLUSION
Considering any limitations of this review, CR and PMCs can be recommended for primary molars after pulpotomy, and CSCs for primary incisors receiving pulpectomy. However, a need for further well-designed RCTs was observed.
Topics: Child; Humans; Tooth, Deciduous; Dental Materials; Dental Caries; Glass Ionomer Cements; Composite Resins; Treatment Outcome; Dental Restoration, Permanent
PubMed: 36056991
DOI: 10.1007/s40368-022-00744-4 -
Journal of Dentistry Oct 2022To investigate the effectiveness of glass ionomer cement (GIC) restorations on preventing new caries in primary or permanent dentitions compared with other types of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVE
To investigate the effectiveness of glass ionomer cement (GIC) restorations on preventing new caries in primary or permanent dentitions compared with other types of restorations.
DATA
Randomized controlled clinical trials evaluating caries experience increment or caries incidence in patients with GIC restorations, including conventional GIC (CGIC) and resin-modified GIC (RMGIC) restorations, were included.
SOURCES
A systematic search of publications in English was conducted in PubMed/Medline, Web of Science, Cochrane, and Scopus databases.
STUDY SELECTION/RESULTS
This review included 10 studies reporting caries preventive effect of GIC restorations and selected 5 studies for meta-analysis. Patients with GIC restorations showed lower caries incidence compared with other restorations in primary and permanent dentition [RR=0.67, 95% CI:0.55-0.82, p < 0.0001]. Patients with CGIC restorations showed lower caries incidence compared with amalgam restorations [RR=0.57, 95% CI:0.43-0.76, p = 0.0001] and RMGIC restorations [RR=0.70, 95% CI:0.56-0.87, p = 0.002], but no statistical difference with composite resin restorations [RR=0.73, 95% CI:0.51-1.04, p = 0.08] in primary dentition. Patients with RMGIC restorations showed no statistical differences of caries incidence compared with composite resin restorations in primary and permanent dentition [RR=0.83, 95% CI:0.56-1.22, p = 0.33].
CONCLUSIONS
GIC restorations presented a better preventive effect on new caries than other restorations did in primary and permanent dentitions. CGIC restorations presented a better caries preventive effect on new caries than RMGIC and amalgam restorations in primary dentitions did. RMGIC restorations showed similar preventing effect on new caries with composite resin restorations in primary and permanent dentitions.
CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE
This review affirmed the potential of GIC in preventing new caries development in the dentition.
Topics: Acrylic Resins; Composite Resins; Dental Caries; Dental Caries Susceptibility; Dental Restoration, Permanent; Glass Ionomer Cements; Humans; Silicon Dioxide
PubMed: 36038075
DOI: 10.1016/j.jdent.2022.104272 -
European Archives of Paediatric... Oct 2022To systematically search the available evidence and evaluate the clinical effectiveness of restorative materials for restoration of carious primary teeth. The findings...
PURPOSE
To systematically search the available evidence and evaluate the clinical effectiveness of restorative materials for restoration of carious primary teeth. The findings aimed to support the European Academy of Paediatric Dentistry (EAPD) guidelines development.
METHODS
Literature search was performed by searching 4 electronic databases for eligible randomised controlled clinical trials (RCTs) comparing restorative materials for the restoration of carious primary teeth up to December 28th, 2020. Quality assessment was performed with the revised Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomized trials (RoB 2).
RESULTS
Of 1685 identified articles 29 RCTs were finally deemed as eligible for inclusion. Annual failure rates were: Amalgam 1-28%; atraumatic restorative treatment 1.2-37.1%; glass-ionomer cement (GIC) 7.6-16.6%, metal-reinforced GIC 29.9%, resin-modified GIC 1.9-16.9%, high-viscosity GIC 2.9-25.6%; glass carbomer ≤ 46.2%; compomer 0-14.7%; composite resin (CR) 0-19.5%, bulk-fill CR 0-16.9%; zirconia crowns 3.3%, composite strip crowns 15%, and preformed metal crowns (Hall-Technique) 3.1%. Secondary caries, poor marginal adaptation, loss of retention, and fracture of restoration were reported as reasons for failure. Four studies were evaluated at unclear and 25 at high risk of bias. Clinical and methodological heterogeneity, and the diversity of tested materials across included studies did not allow for meta-analyses.
CONCLUSIONS
Within the limitations of this systematic review, namely, the heterogeneity and the overall high risk of bias among included studies, clear recommendations based on solid evidence for the best restorative approach in primary teeth cannot be drawn. There is a need for future thoroughly implemented RCTs evaluating restorations in primary teeth to close this knowledge gap.
Topics: Child; Humans; Composite Resins; Dental Atraumatic Restorative Treatment; Dental Caries; Dental Materials; Dental Restoration Failure; Dental Restoration, Permanent; Glass Ionomer Cements; Tooth, Deciduous; Treatment Outcome; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 35819627
DOI: 10.1007/s40368-022-00725-7