-
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