-
Pediatric Dentistry Jan 2022There are several restorative modalities for molar hypomineralization, but there is no consensus on the best approach. The purpose of this review was to describe...
There are several restorative modalities for molar hypomineralization, but there is no consensus on the best approach. The purpose of this review was to describe restorative approaches applied to permanent first molars (PFM) with molar hypomineralization (MH). This review was registered (PROSPERO database CRD42017078336). Searches were conducted in the PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, LILACS, BBO, and Cochrane Library databases and grey literature. From a total of 1,751 studies, 12 that compared restorative treatments for PFM with MH were included. The risk of bias of the studies was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. The success rate was the primary outcome. The restorative treatment options were direct restorations with amalgam, glass ionomer cement, and resin-based composite as well as indirect restorations with stainless steel, porcelain, ceromer, and gold crowns. The restorative techniques, considering the type of isolation and the removal of caries and hypomineralization, vary between the study. There was also a lack of standard clinical criteria for restorative evaluation. The follow-up period ranged from six to 216 months. The success of direct restorations ranged from 86.3 to 100 percent. For indirect restorations, success ranged from 91.3 to 100 percent. There were multiple clinical protocols for MH. The studies presented heterogeneity in the restoration technique, time, and clinical criteria for restorative follow-up. Direct restorations with glass ionomer cement and resin-based composite could be the first choices for restoration. Further randomized clinical trials on a restorative treatment for MH are needed.
Topics: Composite Resins; Dental Amalgam; Dental Caries; Dental Restoration, Permanent; Glass Ionomer Cements; Humans; Molar; Tooth, Deciduous
PubMed: 35232531
DOI: No ID Found -
Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) Jan 2022: There has been an increase in demand for orthodontic treatment within the adult population, who likely receive restorative treatments using ceramic structures. The... (Review)
Review
: There has been an increase in demand for orthodontic treatment within the adult population, who likely receive restorative treatments using ceramic structures. The current state of the art regarding the most effective method to achieve an appropriate bond strength of brackets on ceramic surfaces isn't consensual. This systematic review aims to compare the available surface treatments to ceramics and determine the one that allows to obtain the best bond strength. : This systematic review followed the PRISMA guidelines and the PICO methodology was used, with the question "What is the most effective technique for bonding brackets on ceramic crowns or veneers?". The research was carried out in PubMed, Web of Science, Embase and Cochrane Library databases. In vitro and ex vivo studies were included. The methodological quality was evaluated using the guidelines for reporting of preclinical studies on dental materials by Faggion Jr. : A total of 655 articles searched in various databases were initially scrutinized. Sevety one articles were chosen for quality analysis. The risk of bias was considered medium to high in most studies. The use of hydrofluoric acid (HF), silane and laser afforded the overall best results. HF and HF plus laser achieved significantly highest bond strength scores in felsdphatic porcelain, while laser was the best treatment in lithium disilicate ceramics. : The most effective technique for bonding brackets on ceramic is dependent on the type of ceramic.
PubMed: 35049723
DOI: 10.3390/bioengineering9010014 -
BioMed Research International 2022Despite the importance of identifying proper novel porcelain preparation techniques to improve bonding of orthodontic brackets to porcelain surfaces, and despite the... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Despite the importance of identifying proper novel porcelain preparation techniques to improve bonding of orthodontic brackets to porcelain surfaces, and despite the highly controversial results on this subject, no systematic review or meta-analysis exists in this regard.
OBJECTIVE
To comparatively summarize the effects of all the available porcelain surface treatments on the shear bond strength (SBS) and adhesive remnant index (ARI) of orthodontic brackets (metal, ceramic, polycarbonate) bonded to feldspathic porcelain restorations. . A search was conducted for articles published between January 1990 and February 2021 in PubMed, MeSH, Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane, Google Scholar, and reference lists. . English-language articles comparing SBS of feldspathic porcelain's surface preparation methods for metal/ceramic/polycarbonate orthodontic brackets were included. Articles comparing silanes/bonding agents/primers without assessing roughening techniques were excluded. . Studies were summarized and risk of bias assessed. Each treatment's SBS was compared with the 6 and 10 MPa recommended thresholds. Studies including comparator (HF [hydrofluoric acid] + silane + bonding) were candidates for meta-analysis. ARI scores were dichotomized. Fixed- and random-effects models were used and forest plots drawn. Egger regressions and/or funnel plots were used to assess publication biases.
RESULTS
Thirty-two studies were included (140 groups of SBS, 82 groups of ARI). Bond strengths of 21 studies were meta-analyzed (64 comparisons in 14 meta-analyses). ARIs of 12 articles were meta-analyzed (28 comparisons in 8 meta-analyses). Certain protocols provided bond strengths poorer than HF + silane + bonding: "abrasion + bonding, diamond bur + bonding, HF + bonding, Nd:YAG laser (1 W) + silane + bonding, CO laser (2 W/2 Hz) + silane + bonding, and phosphoric acid + silane + bonding." Abrasion + HF + silane + bonding might act almost better than HF + silane + bonding. Abrasion + silane + bonding yields controversial results, being slightly (marginally significantly) better than HF + silane + bonding. Some protocols had controversial results with their overall effects being close to HF + silane + bonding: "Cojet + silane + bonding, diamond bur + silane + bonding, Er:YAG laser (1.6 W/20 Hz) + silane + bonding." Few methods provided bond strengths similar to HF + silane + bonding without much controversy: "Nd:YAG laser (2 W) + silane + bonding" and "phosphoric acid + silane + bonding" (in ceramic brackets). ARIs were either similar to HF + silane + bonding or relatively skewed towards the "no resin on porcelain" end. The risk of bias was rather low. . All the found studies were in vitro and thus not easily translatable to clinical conditions. Many metasamples were small.
CONCLUSIONS
The preparation methods HF + silane + bonding, abrasion + HF + silane + bonding, Nd:YAG (2 W) + silane + bonding, and phosphoric acid + silane + bonding (in ceramic brackets) might provide stronger bonds.
Topics: Dental Porcelain; Humans; Materials Testing; Orthodontic Brackets; Shear Strength; Surface Properties
PubMed: 35036438
DOI: 10.1155/2022/8246980 -
Journal of Prosthodontic Research Oct 2022This study systematically reviewed the literature to compare the bond strength of resin composites with that of zirconia-reinforced lithium silicate (ZLS) and lithium... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
PURPOSE
This study systematically reviewed the literature to compare the bond strength of resin composites with that of zirconia-reinforced lithium silicate (ZLS) and lithium disilicate (LD).
STUDY SELECTION
This review was structured based on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA 2020) statement. This study was registered at the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (CRD42021256900). Studies were searched via PubMed, Web of Science, and Google Scholar databases without language or publication year limits. In vitro studies that evaluated the bond strength of the resin composites to ZLS and LD were included. The risk of bias in all the included articles was evaluated. Statistical analyses were performed using the Review Manager software (version 5.3, Cochrane Collaboration, Oxford, UK).
RESULTS
Of the 90 potentially related articles, the full texts of 16 articles were evaluated after screening. Finally, seven studies were included in the qualitative synthesis and meta-analysis. All the studies presented a medium risk of bias. The results showed no significant difference in bond strength between the ZLS and LD groups (P = 0.94, mean difference=0.08, and 95% confidence interval=-1.93 to 2.10). However, a significant difference was found in the subgroup analysis considering different types of aging treatments (P = 0.0008) and different types of bond strength tests (P < 0.00001).
CONCLUSION
The bond strength of resin composites was found to be similar to that of ZLS and LD, but different aging treatments and bond strength tests exhibited varying effects on the bond strength.
Topics: Ceramics; Composite Resins; Dental Porcelain; Dental Stress Analysis; Lithium; Materials Testing; Resin Cements; Silicates; Surface Properties; Zirconium
PubMed: 34853237
DOI: 10.2186/jpr.JPR_D_20_00112 -
Clinical Oral Implants Research Jan 2022To analyze the clinical outcomes of all-ceramic single crowns (SCs) and fixed dental prostheses (FDPs) supported by ceramic implants. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVE
To analyze the clinical outcomes of all-ceramic single crowns (SCs) and fixed dental prostheses (FDPs) supported by ceramic implants.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Based on a focused question and customized PICO framework, electronic (Medline/EMBASE/Cochrane) and manual searches for studies reporting the clinical outcomes of all-ceramic SCs and FDPs supported by ceramic implants ≥12 months were performed. The primary outcomes were reconstruction survival and the chipping proportion. The secondary outcomes were implant survival, technical complications, and patient-related outcome measurements. Meta-analyses were performed after 1, 2, and 5 years using random-effect meta-analyses.
RESULTS
Eight of the 1,403 initially screened titles and 55 full texts were included. Five reported on monolithic lithium disilicate (LS2) SCs, one on veneered zirconia SCs, and two on veneered zirconia SCs and FDPs, which reported all on cement-retained reconstructions (mean observation: 12.0-61.0 months). Meta-analyses estimated a 5-year survival rate of 94% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 82%-100%) for overall implant survival. Reconstruction survival proportions after 5 years were: monolithic LS2, 100% (95%CI: 95%-100%); veneered zirconia SCs, 89% (95%CI: 62%-100%); and veneered zirconia FDPs 94% (95%CI: 81%-100%). The chipping proportion after 5 years was: monolithic LS2, 2% (95%CI: 0%-11%); veneered zirconia SCs, 38% (95%CI: 24%-54%); and veneered zirconia FDPs, 57% (95%CI: 38%-76%). Further outcomes were summarized descriptively.
CONCLUSIONS
Due to the limited data available, only tendencies could be identified. All-ceramic reconstructions supported by ceramic implants demonstrated promising survival rates after mid-term observation. However, high chipping proportions of veneered zirconia SCs and, particularly, FDPs diminished the overall outcome. Monolithic LS2 demonstrated fewer clinical complications. Monolithic reconstructions could be a valid treatment option for ceramic implants.
Topics: Ceramics; Crowns; Dental Implants; Dental Porcelain; Dental Prosthesis Design; Dental Prosthesis, Implant-Supported; Dental Restoration Failure; Humans; Metal Ceramic Alloys; Zirconium
PubMed: 34665900
DOI: 10.1111/clr.13871 -
Journal of Esthetic and Restorative... Apr 2022An assessment was performed to identify and evaluate dental enamel wear caused by monolithic zirconia restoration. Literature searches were conducted in PubMed, Science... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVE
An assessment was performed to identify and evaluate dental enamel wear caused by monolithic zirconia restoration. Literature searches were conducted in PubMed, Science Direct, Cochrane Evidence, and the Cochrane Library up to May 2020.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
Studies were selected for systematic review according to the inclusion (articles conducted on the wear of enamel samples opposing monolithic zirconia) and exclusion (case reports, non-English articles, and monolithic zirconia samples facing other materials rather than human enamel) criteria. Of those, articles on polished and glazed monolithic zirconia subjected to a 50 N vertical load with a range of 240,000-250,000 cycles, equivalent to 1 year of in vivo mastication, were included in the meta-analysis.
RESULTS
In total, 3968 articles were pooled. Twenty-five articles met the inclusion criteria for the systematic review. Three studies were included in the meta-analysis. The results showed that the enamel wear against monolithic zirconia was within the statistically accepted level. Moreover, the polished monolithic zirconia surface caused less enamel wear than the glazed surface.
CONCLUSION
This review indicates that monolithic zirconia restorations cause acceptable antagonist enamel wear. Moreover, the meta-analysis results agreed that the final restoration's surface texture plays an essential role in the wear process.
CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE
Monolithic zirconia restorations have been widely used in dental practice because they eliminate the chipping problems resulting from using veneered restorations. With recent technology development, monolithic zirconia has obtained more esthetic features and a more natural look. However, due to the high strength and surface roughness of monolithic zirconia, wear on the antagonist's teeth was detected. The results showed that this wear amount was statistically acceptable and lower than other ceramics such as feldspathic porcelain and enamel. Furthermore, surface treatment methods must be applied to minimize tooth wear, as polished or glazed surfaces interfere with enamel loss.
Topics: Dental Enamel; Dental Porcelain; Humans; Materials Testing; Surface Properties; Tooth Wear; Zirconium
PubMed: 34623015
DOI: 10.1111/jerd.12823 -
The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry Oct 2022Selective laser melting (SLM) additive manufacturing (AM) technologies provide an alternative to conventional casting and milling procedures in fabricating metal-ceramic... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Adhesion of veneering porcelain to cobalt-chromium dental alloys processed with casting, milling, and additive manufacturing methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
STATEMENT OF PROBLEM
Selective laser melting (SLM) additive manufacturing (AM) technologies provide an alternative to conventional casting and milling procedures in fabricating metal-ceramic dental prostheses. However, the quality of porcelain bond strength to the SLM AM cobalt-chromium (Co-Cr) metal framework of a dental restoration is unclear.
PURPOSE
The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to identify in vitro studies that reported the porcelain bond strength to SLM AM Co-Cr dental metal alloys and compare the porcelain bond strength values to cast, milled, and additively manufactured Co-Cr dental alloys.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
An electronic systematic review was performed in different databases: MEDLINE/PubMed, EMBASE, World of Science, Cochrane, and Scopus. A manual search was also conducted. Studies that reported the porcelain bond strength to SLM Co-Cr metal alloys and in the English language were included. Two investigators evaluated the quality assessment of the studies by applying the JBI critical appraisal checklist for quasi-experimental studies (nonrandomized experimental studies). A third investigator was consulted to resolve lack of consensus. Two subgroups were created based on the test used, 3-point bend and shear bond strength tests. The porcelain bond strength of cast, milled, and AM Co-Cr dental alloys were compared. The I2 statistic and its associated P value were used to assess the heterogeneity between studies. The Eger test was used for determining significance of the funnel pots.
RESULTS
A total of 216 studies were collected from the electronic and manual searches. After independently evaluating the titles and abstracts by the reviewers, 26 articles were identified. Three of these were excluded after full-text revision. The porcelain bond strength comparison between the cast and AM alloys for the 3-point bend subgroup revealed a significant result for overall effect (P<.001) favoring the SLM method with considerable heterogeneity (I2=83%, P<.001). Furthermore, the porcelain bond strength comparison between cast and milled alloys for the shear bond strength subgroup revealed a significant test for overall effect (P=.04) favoring milled procedures with a nonsignificant unimportant heterogeneity (I2= 0%, P<.47) and for the 3-point bend subgroup (P<.001) favoring milled specimens with a significant considerable heterogeneity (I2=79%, P<.001).
CONCLUSIONS
The metal manufacturing method had no effect on the porcelain bond strength to Co-Cr dental metal alloys.
Topics: Dental Porcelain; Chromium Alloys; Metal Ceramic Alloys; Dental Bonding; Materials Testing; Surface Properties; Cobalt; Chromium; Dental Alloys
PubMed: 34294418
DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2021.01.001 -
The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry Jan 2023Lithium disilicate crowns can be manufactured by computer-aided design and computer-aided manufacturing (CAD-CAM) or with the heat-pressed technique. The outcome of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
STATEMENT OF PROBLEM
Lithium disilicate crowns can be manufactured by computer-aided design and computer-aided manufacturing (CAD-CAM) or with the heat-pressed technique. The outcome of studies comparing the effect of the manufacturing method on the marginal adaptation of these crowns is not clear.
PURPOSE
The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to investigate the effect of the CAD-CAM system and pressing technique on the marginal adaptation of lithium disilicate crowns.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
This study followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement. A literature research was conducted in MEDLINE via PubMed and Scopus databases, relevant journal sites, and the authors' collected references, from January 2009 to April 2019.
RESULTS
The electronic and manual searches that could be read in full totaled 24 studies; of which, 9 were included in the systematic review and meta-analysis, 7 of which were in vitro and 2 in vivo. Statistical analyses were conducted by using Review Manager software program. Meta-analyses were performed with the random effects model (α=.05). In vitro studies showed no difference in the manufacturing (P>.001; 95% confidence interval -0.687 to 0.632), and no significant difference was found for in vivo studies (P=.7, 95% confidence interval 0.00 to 54.77). In the joint analysis of the in vivo and in vitro articles, there was a significant difference between the manufacturing methods (P<.001).
CONCLUSIONS
Differences were detected between the marginal adaptation of lithium disilicate crowns fabricated with the CAD-CAM system and the pressing technique, but the accuracy values were clinically acceptable.
Topics: Hot Temperature; Dental Prosthesis Design; Dental Impression Technique; Dental Marginal Adaptation; Dental Porcelain; Crowns; Computer-Aided Design
PubMed: 34147239
DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2021.03.021 -
Experimental methodologies to evaluate the masking ability of dental materials: A systematic review.Journal of Esthetic and Restorative... Dec 2021To conduct a systematic review on the masking ability of discolored substrates, analyzing the capacity and quality of the response produced by the different... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVE
To conduct a systematic review on the masking ability of discolored substrates, analyzing the capacity and quality of the response produced by the different methodologies and techniques applied to overcome this clinical challenge.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
The study followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement. The electronic search was conducted in MEDLINE/PubMed, Scopus and Web of Science databases, without date restriction. In vitro studies, written in English, applying different methodologies to evaluate masking ability were included. The variables of interest were: type, color and thickness of the restorative and/or cement material; use of pigments in the restorative material and/or cement; color of the substrate; and background color used for the evaluations.
RESULTS
Database search retrieved 307 eligible papers with a final inclusion of 47 published papers. Approximately 98% of the studies used ΔE, 36% used TP, and only 6% used CR to evaluate the masking ability of restorative materials.
CONCLUSIONS
The most appropriate methodology to evaluate the masking ability is using color difference equations (ΔE) associated with the perceptibility and acceptability thresholds.
CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE
As different methodologies have been used to evaluate the masking ability of esthetic restorative materials on colored substrates, there is an urgent need to reach a consensus and propose a method, which is suggested by the present systematic review.
Topics: Ceramics; Color; Dental Materials; Dental Porcelain; Materials Testing
PubMed: 34085377
DOI: 10.1111/jerd.12791 -
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