-
Materials (Basel, Switzerland) Jul 2019Sterilization is a fundamental step in the reuse of endodontic instruments. The sterilization procedure involves disinfection, cleaning, washing, drying, packaging, and... (Review)
Review
Sterilization is a fundamental step in the reuse of endodontic instruments. The sterilization procedure involves disinfection, cleaning, washing, drying, packaging, and sterilization by heat. Heat sterilization can lead to changes in the physical and mechanical properties of dental instruments. These changes can affect the external surfaces via micropitting, corrosion, a reduction in cutting capacity, and/or an influence on the resistance to cyclic fatigue or to torsional fatigue. In this study, we examined the modification of the torsional properties of endodontic instruments after hot sterilization, and compared the properties with instruments not subjected to hot sterilization cycles in terms of resistance to torsional fatigue and deflection angle in NiTi and steel instruments. The following work was performed based on the PRISMA indications. Studies were identified through bibliographic research using electronic databases. A total of 725 records were identified in the PubMed and Scopus databases. A total of 685 records remained after exclusion by year of publication (1979 to 2019). With the application of the eligibility criteria (all articles pertaining to the issue of sterilization in endodontics), we found 146 articles, which decreased to 130 articles after elimination of duplications. There were 45 articles that studied the influences of sterilization procedures on the physical and mechanical characteristics of the instruments, and 12 that measured parameters related to resistance to torsional fatigue. Applying the inclusion and exclusion criteria resulted in a total of eight articles for quantitative analysis. The meta-analysis results show a pejorative effect of torsional fatigue for NiTi instruments subjected to heat sterilization compared to the non-sterilized control.
PubMed: 31288384
DOI: 10.3390/ma12132190 -
Clinical Oral Implants Research Oct 2018The aim of the present systematic review was to analyze the survival and complication rates of zirconia-based and metal-ceramic implant-supported single crowns (SCs).
OBJECTIVES
The aim of the present systematic review was to analyze the survival and complication rates of zirconia-based and metal-ceramic implant-supported single crowns (SCs).
MATERIALS AND METHODS
An electronic MEDLINE search complemented by manual searching was conducted to identify randomized controlled clinical trials, prospective cohort and retrospective case series on implant-supported SCs with a mean follow-up time of at least 3 years. Patients had to have been clinically examined at the follow-up visit. Assessment of the identified studies and data extraction was performed independently by two reviewers. Failure and complication rates were analyzed using robust Poisson's regression models to obtain summary estimates of 5-year proportions.
RESULTS
The search provided 5,263 titles and 455 abstracts, full-text analysis was performed for 240 articles, resulting in 35 included studies on implant-supported crowns. Meta-analysis revealed an estimated 5-year survival rate of 98.3% (95% CI: 96.8-99.1) for metal-ceramic implant supported SCs (n = 4,363) compared to 97.6% (95% CI: 94.3-99.0) for zirconia implant supported SCs (n = 912). About 86.7% (95% CI: 80.7-91.0) of the metal-ceramic SCs (n = 1,300) experienced no biological/technical complications over the entire observation period. The corresponding rate for zirconia SCs (n = 76) was 83.8% (95% CI: 61.6-93.8). The biologic outcomes of the two types of crowns were similar; yet, zirconia SCs exhibited less aesthetic complications than metal-ceramics. The 5-year incidence of chipping of the veneering ceramic was similar between the material groups (2.9% metal-ceramic, 2.8% zirconia-ceramic). Significantly (p = 0.001), more zirconia-ceramic implant SCs failed due to material fractures (2.1% vs. 0.2% metal-ceramic implant SCs). No studies on newer types of monolithic zirconia SCs fulfilled the simple inclusion criteria of 3 years follow-up time and clinical examination of the present systematic review.
CONCLUSION
Zirconia-ceramic implant-supported SCs are a valid treatment alternative to metal-ceramic SCs, with similar incidence of biological complications and less aesthetic problems. The amount of ceramic chipping was similar between the material groups; yet, significantly more zirconia crowns failed due to material fractures.
Topics: Ceramics; Crowns; Databases, Factual; Dental Implants; Dental Materials; Dental Prosthesis Design; Dental Prosthesis, Implant-Supported; Dental Restoration Failure; Esthetics, Dental; Humans; Metal Ceramic Alloys; Survival Analysis; Zirconium
PubMed: 30328190
DOI: 10.1111/clr.13306 -
Clinical Oral Implants Research Oct 2018The aim of the present review was to compare the outcomes, that is, survival and complication rates of zirconia-ceramic and/or monolithic zirconia implant-supported... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVES
The aim of the present review was to compare the outcomes, that is, survival and complication rates of zirconia-ceramic and/or monolithic zirconia implant-supported fixed dental prostheses (FDPs) with metal-ceramic FDPs.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
An electronic MEDLINE search complemented by manual searching was conducted to identify randomized controlled clinical trials, prospective cohort studies and retrospective case series on implant-supported FDPs with a mean follow-up of at least 3 years. Patients had to have been examined clinically at the follow-up visit. Assessment of the identified studies and data extraction was performed independently by two reviewers. Failure and complication rates were analyzed using robust Poisson regression models to obtain summary estimates of 5-year proportions.
RESULTS
The search provided 5,263 titles and 455 abstracts. Full-text analysis was performed for 240 articles resulting in 19 studies on implant FDPs that met the inclusion criteria. The studies reported on 932 metal-ceramic and 175 zirconia-ceramic FDPs. Meta-analysis revealed an estimated 5-year survival rate of 98.7% (95% CI: 96.8%-99.5%) for metal-ceramic implant-supported FDPs, and of 93.0% (95% CI: 90.6%-94.8%) for zirconia-ceramic implant-supported FDPs (p < 0.001). Thirteen studies including 781 metal-ceramic implant-supported FDPs estimated a 5-year rate of ceramic fractures and chippings to be 11.6% compared with a significantly higher (p < 0.001) complication rate for zirconia implant-supported FDPs of 50%, reported in a small study with 13 zirconia implant-supported FDPs. Significantly (p = 0.001) more, that is, 4.1%, of the zirconia-ceramic implant-supported FDPs were lost due to ceramic fractures compared to only 0.2% of the metal-ceramic implant-supported FDPs. Detailed analysis of factors like number of units of the FDPs or location in the jaws was not possible due to heterogeneity of reporting. No studies on monolithic zirconia implant-supported FDPs fulfilled the inclusion criteria of the present review. Furthermore, no conclusive results were found for the aesthetic outcomes of both FDP-types.
CONCLUSION
For implant-supported FDPs, conventionally veneered zirconia should not be considered as material selection of first priority, as pronounced risk for framework fractures and chipping of the zirconia veneering ceramic was observed. Monolithic zirconia may be an interesting alternative, but its clinical medium- to long-term outcomes have not been evaluated yet. Hence, metal ceramics seems to stay the golden standard for implant-supported multiple-unit FDPs.
Topics: Ceramics; Databases, Factual; Dental Implants; Dental Materials; Dental Prosthesis Design; Dental Prosthesis, Implant-Supported; Dental Restoration Failure; Denture, Partial, Fixed; Esthetics, Dental; Humans; Metal Ceramic Alloys; Survival Analysis; Zirconium
PubMed: 30328185
DOI: 10.1111/clr.13277 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jul 2018Initial arch wires are the first arch wires to be inserted into the fixed appliance at the beginning of orthodontic treatment and are used mainly for the alignment of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Initial arch wires are the first arch wires to be inserted into the fixed appliance at the beginning of orthodontic treatment and are used mainly for the alignment of teeth by correcting crowding and rotations. With a number of different types of orthodontic arch wires available for initial tooth alignment, it is important to understand which wire is most efficient, as well as which wires cause least amount of root resorption and pain during the initial aligning stage of treatment. This is an update of the review entitledInitial arch wires for alignment of crooked teeth with fixed orthodontic braces, which was first published in 2010.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of initial arch wires for the alignment of teeth with fixed orthodontic braces, in terms of the rate of tooth alignment, amount of root resorption accompanying tooth movement, and intensity of pain experienced by patients during the initial alignment stage of treatment.
SEARCH METHODS
Cochrane Oral Health's Information Specialist searched the following databases: Cochrane Oral Health's Trials Register (to 5 October 2017), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (the Cochrane Library, 2017, Issue 9), MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to 5 October 2017), and Embase Ovid (1980 to 5 October 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. No restrictions were placed on the language or date of publication when searching the electronic databases.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of initial arch wires to align teeth with fixed orthodontic braces. We included only studies involving participants with upper or lower, or both, full arch fixed orthodontic appliances.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors were responsible for study selection, 'Risk of bias' assessment and data extraction. We resolved disagreements by discussion between the review authors. We contacted corresponding authors of included studies to obtain missing information. We assessed the quality of the evidence for each comparison and outcome as high, moderate, low or very low, according to GRADE criteria.
MAIN RESULTS
For this update, we found three new RCTs (228 participants), bringing the total to 12 RCTs with 799 participants. We judged three studies to be at high risk of bias, and three to be at low risk of bias; six were unclear. None of the studies reported the adverse outcome of root resorption. The review assessed six comparisons.1. Multistrand stainless steel versus superelastic nickel-titanium (NiTi) arch wires. There were five studies in this group and it was appropriate to undertake a meta-analysis of two of them. There is insufficient evidence from these studies to determine whether there is a difference in rate of alignment between multistrand stainless steel and superelastic NiTi arch wires (mean difference (MD) -7.5 mm per month, 95% confidence interval (CI) -26.27 to 11.27; 1 study, 48 participants; low-quality evidence). The findings for pain at day 1 as measured on a 100 mm visual analogue scale suggested that there was no meaningful difference between the interventions (MD -2.68 mm, 95% CI -6.75 to 1.38; 2 studies, 127 participants; moderate-quality evidence).2. Multistrand stainless steel versus thermoelastic NiTi arch wires. There were two studies in this group, but it was not appropriate to undertake a meta-analysis of the data. There is insufficient evidence from the studies to determine whether there is a difference in rate of alignment between multistrand stainless steel and thermoelastic NiTi arch wires (low-quality evidence). Pain was not measured.3. Conventional NiTi versus superelastic NiTi arch wires. There were three studies in this group, but it was not appropriate to undertake a meta-analysis of the data. There is insufficient evidence from these studies to determine whether there is any difference between conventional and superelastic NiTi arch wires with regard to either alignment or pain (low- to very low-quality evidence).4. Conventional NiTi versus thermoelastic NiTi arch wires. There were two studies in this group, but it was not appropriate to undertake a meta-analysis of the data. There is insufficient evidence from these studies to determine whether there is a difference in alignment between conventional and thermoelastic NiTi arch wires (low-quality evidence). Pain was not measured.5. Single-strand superelastic NiTi versus coaxial superelastic NiTi arch wires. There was only one study (24 participants) in this group. There is moderate-quality evidence that coaxial superelastic NiTi can produce greater tooth movement over 12 weeks (MD -6.76 mm, 95% CI -7.98 to -5.55). Pain was not measured.6. Superelastic NiTi versus thermoelastic NiTi arch wires. There were three studies in this group, but it was not appropriate to undertake a meta-analysis of the data. There is insufficient evidence from these studies to determine whether there is a difference in alignment or pain between superelastic and thermoelastic NiTi arch wires (low-quality evidence).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Moderate-quality evidence shows that arch wires of coaxial superelastic nickel-titanium (NiTi) can produce greater tooth movement over 12 weeks than arch wires made of single-strand superelastic NiTi. Moderate-quality evidence also suggests there may be no difference in pain at day 1 between multistrand stainless steel arch wires and superelastic NiTi arch wires. Other than these findings, there is insufficient evidence to determine whether any particular arch wire material is superior to any other in terms of alignment rate, time to alignment, pain and root resorption.
Topics: Alloys; Dental Alloys; Humans; Orthodontic Brackets; Orthodontic Wires; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Root Resorption; Tooth Movement Techniques; Toothache
PubMed: 30064155
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD007859.pub4 -
Hua Xi Kou Qiang Yi Xue Za Zhi = Huaxi... Jun 2018This review aims to assess the relationship between initial archwire materials and pain at the initial stage of orthodontic treatment. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
This review aims to assess the relationship between initial archwire materials and pain at the initial stage of orthodontic treatment.
METHODS
On October 1, 2017, seven databases were searched electronically for studies oninitial archwire materials and pain at the initial stage of orthodontic treatment. Quality assessment was performed with bias risk assessment tools suggested by Cochrane's handbook. Data extraction of included studies was also carried out. Network Meta- analysis was conducted using R 3.4.2 (with JAGS 4.3.0), GeMTC 0.14.3, and STATA 11.0.
RESULTS
Five studies with 330 participants were included, comparing four different materials: multi-stranded stainless steel, conventional nickel-titanium, super-elastic nickel-titanium, and thermal heat-activated nickel-titanium. Two studies were at low risk of bias, one was at high risk of bias, and the remaining two were at unclear risk of bias. Network Meta-analysis results showed no statistical differences of pain among the four initial archwire materials at day 1 and day 7. However, the most painless material was most likely to be thermal heat-activated nickel-titanium on rank probability.
CONCLUSIONS
On statistical probability, thermal heat-activated nickel-titanium initial arch wires is most likely to cause the least pain at the initial stage of orthodontic treatment, compared with other materials.
Topics: Dental Alloys; Humans; Materials Testing; Network Meta-Analysis; Nickel; Orthodontic Appliance Design; Orthodontic Brackets; Orthodontic Wires; Pain; Stainless Steel; Surface Properties; Titanium
PubMed: 29984932
DOI: 10.7518/hxkq.2018.03.013 -
The Journal of Evidence-based Dental... Mar 2018This systematic review evaluated the effectiveness of nickel-titanium (NiTi) rotary files compared to stainless-steel (SST) hand files. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
INTRODUCTION
This systematic review evaluated the effectiveness of nickel-titanium (NiTi) rotary files compared to stainless-steel (SST) hand files.
METHODS
An electronic search was performed on Medline, EMBASE, CENTRAL and Scopus databases up to February 2016. An additional hand searching was performed in 13 journals. The studies were classified according to study type and the outcome variables. Two reviewers independently applied eligibility criteria, extracted data, and three reviewers independently assessed the quality of the evidence of each included study according to The Cochrane Collaboration's procedures. A meta-analysis was performed whenever it was possible.
RESULTS
The electronic and hand search strategies yielded 1155 references of studies after removal of duplicates. Four clinical studies (two prospective and two retrospective studies) and 18 in vitro studies (on extracted teeth) were included for the qualitative synthesis after full-text evaluation of the eligible studies. The overall level of methodological quality of the studies included can be considered inadequate. Only one clinical study was judged at low risk of bias, whereas most non-clinical studies had a low risk of bias. Three meta-analyses, based on a very limited number of studies, could be performed. Each meta-analysis contained two studies. Of these, one meta-analysis was based on clinical studies.
CONCLUSIONS
The results of this systematic review suggested that NiTi rotary instruments were associated with lower canal transportation and apical extrusion when compared to SST hand files, whereas both groups had similar outcomes in terms of success of therapy, amount of residual bacteria, and cleansing ability after treatment. However, due to the limited evidence available, these results should be interpreted with caution. Consequently, more randomized control trials using standardized protocols are needed in order to provide more solid recommendations.
Topics: Dental Alloys; Dental Instruments; Humans; Nickel; Prospective Studies; Retrospective Studies; Root Canal Preparation; Root Canal Therapy; Stainless Steel; Titanium
PubMed: 29478682
DOI: 10.1016/j.jebdp.2017.08.001 -
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 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Dec 2016Root canal therapy is a sequence of treatments involving root canal cleaning, shaping, decontamination and obturation. It is conventionally performed through a hole... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Root canal therapy is a sequence of treatments involving root canal cleaning, shaping, decontamination and obturation. It is conventionally performed through a hole drilled into the crown of the affected tooth, namely orthograde root canal therapy. For teeth that cannot be treated with orthograde root canal therapy, or for which it has failed, retrograde root filling, which seals the root canal from the root apex, is a good alternative. Many materials, such as amalgam, zinc oxide eugenol and mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA), are generally used. Since none meets all the criteria an ideal material should possess, selecting the most efficacious material is of utmost importance.
OBJECTIVES
To determine the effects of different materials used for retrograde filling in children and adults for whom retrograde filling is necessary in order to save the tooth.
SEARCH METHODS
Cochrane Oral Health's Information Specialist searched the following databases: Cochrane Oral Health's Trials Register (to 13 September 2016); the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2016, Issue 8) in the Cochrane Library (searched 13 September 2016); MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to 13 September 2016); Embase Ovid (1980 to 13 September 2016); LILACS BIREME Virtual Health Library (1982 to 13 September 2016); and OpenSIGLE (1980 to 2005). ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform were searched for ongoing trials. We also searched Chinese BioMedical Literature Database (in Chinese, 1978 to 20 September 2016); VIP (in Chinese, 1989 to 20 September 2016); China National Knowledge Infrastructure (in Chinese, 1994 to 20 September 2016); and Sciencepaper Online (in Chinese, to 20 September 2016). No restrictions were placed on the language or date of publication when searching the electronic databases.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We selected randomised controlled trials (RCTs) only that compared different retrograde filling materials, with reported success rate that was assessed by clinical or radiological methods for which the follow-up period was at least 12 months.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors extracted data independently and in duplicate. Original trial authors were contacted for any missing information. Two review authors independently carried out risk of bias assessments for each eligible study following Cochrane methodological guidelines.
MAIN RESULTS
We included six studies (916 participants with 988 teeth) reported in English. All the studies had high risk of bias. The six studies examined five different comparisons, including MTA versus intermediate restorative material (IRM), MTA versus super ethoxybenzoic acid cement (Super-EBA), Super-EBA versus IRM, dentine-bonded resin composite versus glass ionomer cement and glass ionomer cement versus amalgam. There was therefore little pooling of data and very little evidence for each comparison.There is weak evidence of little or no difference between MTA and IRM at the first year of follow-up (risk ratio (RR) 1.09; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.97 to 1.22; 222 teeth; quality of evidence: low). Insufficient evidence of a difference between MTA and IRM on success rate at the second year of follow-up (RR 1.06; 95% CI: 0.89 to 1.25; 86 teeth, 86 participants; quality of evidence: very low). All the other outcomes were based on a single study. There is insufficient evidence of any difference between MTA and Super-EBA at the one-year follow-up (RR 1.03; 95% CI: 0.96 to 1.10; 192 teeth, 192 participants; quality of evidence: very low), and only weak evidence indicating there might be a small increase in success rate at the one-year follow-up in favour of IRM compared to Super-EBA (RR 0.90; 95% CI: 0.80 to 1.01; 194 teeth; quality of evidence: very low). There was also insufficient and weak evidence to show that dentine-bonded resin composite might be a better choice for increasing retrograde filling success rate compared to glass ionomer cement at the one-year follow-up (RR 2.39; 95% CI: 1.60 to 3.59; 122 teeth, 122 participants; quality of evidence: very low). And there was insufficient evidence of a difference between glass ionomer cement and amalgam at both the one-year (RR 0.98; 95% CI: 0.86 to 1.12; 105 teeth; quality of evidence: very low) and five-year follow-ups (RR 1.00; 95% CI: 0.84 to 1.20; 82 teeth; quality of evidence: very low).None of these studies reported an adverse event.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Based on the present limited evidence, there is insufficient evidence to draw any conclusion as to the benefits of any one material over another. We conclude that more high-quality RCTs are required.
Topics: Adult; Child; Dental Amalgam; Dental Cements; Glass Ionomer Cements; Humans; Hydroxybenzoate Ethers; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Resin Cements; Root Canal Filling Materials; Root Canal Therapy
PubMed: 27991646
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD005517.pub2 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Oct 2016Childhood caries (tooth decay) consists of a form of tooth decay that affects the milk teeth (also known as baby or primary teeth) of children. This may range from tooth... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Childhood caries (tooth decay) consists of a form of tooth decay that affects the milk teeth (also known as baby or primary teeth) of children. This may range from tooth decay in a single tooth to rampant caries affecting all the teeth in the mouth. Primary teeth in young children are vital to their development and every effort should be made to retain these teeth for as long as is possible. Dental fillings or restorations have been used as an intervention to repair these damaged teeth. Oral health professionals need to make astute decisions about the type of restorative (filling) material they choose to best manage their patients with childhood caries. This decision is by no means an easy one as remarkable advances in dental restorative materials over the last 10 years has seen the introduction of a multitude of different filling materials claiming to provide the best performance in terms of durability, aesthetics, symptom relief, etc when placed in the mouth. This review sought to compare the different types of dental materials against each other for the same outcomes.
OBJECTIVES
The objective of this review was to compare the outcomes (including pain relief, survival and aesthetics) for restorative materials used to treat caries in the primary dentition in children. Additionally, the restoration of teeth was compared with extraction and no treatment.
SEARCH METHODS
Electronic searches of the following databases were undertaken: the Cochrane Oral Health Group's Trials Register (up to January 2009); CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library 2009, Issue1); MEDLINE (1966 to January 2009); EMBASE (1996 to January 2009); SIGLE (1976 to 2004); and conference proceedings on early childhood caries, restorative materials for paediatric dentistry, and material sciences conferences for dental materials used for children's dentistry (1990 to 2008). The searches attempted to identify all relevant studies irrespective of language.Additionally, the reference lists from articles of eligible papers were searched, handsearching of key journals was undertaken, and personal communication with authors and manufacturers of dental materials was initiated to increase the pool of suitable trials (both published and unpublished) for inclusion into this review.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi-randomised controlled trials with a minimum period of 6 months follow up were included. Both parallel group and split-mouth study designs were considered. The unit of randomisation could be the individual, group (school, school class, etc), tooth or tooth pair. Included studies had a drop-out rate of less than 30%. The eligible trials consisted of young children (children less than 12 years) with tooth decay involving at least one tooth in the primary dentition which was symptomatic or symptom free at the start of the study.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Data were independently extracted, in duplicate, by two review authors. Disagreements were resolved by consultation with a third review author. Authors were contacted for missing or unclear information regarding randomisation, allocation sequence, presentation of data, etc. A quality assessment of included trials was undertaken. The Cochrane Collaboration statistical guidelines were followed for data analysis.
MAIN RESULTS
Only three studies were included in this review. The Fuks 1999 study assessed the clinical performance of aesthetic crowns versus conventional stainless steel crowns in 11 children who had at least two mandibular primary molars that required a crown restoration. The outcomes assessed at 6 months included gingival health (odds ratio (OR) 0.3; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.01 to 8.32), restoration failure (OR 3.29; 95% CI 0.12 to 89.81), occlusion, proximal contact and marginal integrity. The odds ratios for occlusion, proximal contact and marginal integrity could not be estimated as no events were recorded at the 6-month evaluation. The Donly 1999 split-mouth study compared a resin-modified glass ionomer (Vitremer) with amalgam over a 36-month period. Forty pairs of Class II restorations were placed in 40 patients (21 males; 19 females; mean age 8 years +/- 1.17; age range 6 to 9 years). Although the study period was 3 years (36 months), only the 6- and 12-month results are reported due to the loss to follow up of patients being greater than 30% for the 24- and 36-month data. Marks 1999a recruited 30 patients (age range 4 to 9 years; mean age 6.7 years, standard deviation 2.3) with one pair of primary molars that required a Class II restoration. The materials tested were Dyract (compomer) and Tytin (amalgam). Loss to follow up at 24 and 36 months was 20% and 43% respectively. This meant that only the 24-month data were useable. For all of the outcomes compared in all three studies, there were no significant differences in clinical performance between the materials tested.No studies were found that compared restorations versus extractions or no treatment as an intervention in children with childhood caries.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
It was disappointing that only three trials that compared three different types of materials were suitable for inclusion into this review. There were no significant differences found in all three trials for all of the outcomes assessed. Well designed, randomised controlled trials comparing the different types of filling materials for similar outcomes are urgently needed in dentistry. There was insufficient evidence from the three included trials to make any recommendations about which filling material to use.
Topics: Child; Child, Preschool; Compomers; Composite Resins; Crowns; Dental Alloys; Dental Amalgam; Dental Caries; Dental Materials; Dental Restoration, Permanent; Glass Ionomer Cements; Humans; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Tooth, Deciduous
PubMed: 27748505
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004483.pub3 -
Journal of Applied Oral Science :... 2016A systematic review was conducted to analyze Brazilian scientific and technological production related to the dental materials field over the past 50 years. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVE
A systematic review was conducted to analyze Brazilian scientific and technological production related to the dental materials field over the past 50 years.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
This study followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (Prisma) statement. Searches were performed until December 2014 in six databases: MedLine (PubMed), Scopus, LILACS, IBECS, BBO, and the Cochrane Library. Additionally, the Brazilian patent database (INPI - Instituto Nacional de Propriedade Industrial) was screened in order to get an overview of Brazilian technological development in the dental materials field. Two reviewers independently analyzed the documents. Only studies and patents related to dental materials were included in this review. Data regarding the material category, dental specialty, number of documents and patents, filiation countries, and the number of citations were tabulated and analyzed in Microsoft Office Excel (Microsoft Corporation, Redmond, Washington, United States).
RESULTS
A total of 115,806 studies and 53 patents were related to dental materials and were included in this review. Brazil had 8% affiliation in studies related to dental materials, and the majority of the papers published were related to dental implants (1,137 papers), synthetic resins (681 papers), dental cements (440 papers), dental alloys (392 papers) and dental adhesives (361 papers). The Brazilian technological development with patented dental materials was smaller than the scientific production. The most patented type of material was dental alloys (11 patents), followed by dental implants (8 patents) and composite resins (7 patents).
CONCLUSIONS
Dental materials science has had a substantial number of records, demonstrating an important presence in scientific and technological development of dentistry. In addition, it is important to approximate the relationship between academia and industry to expand the technological development in countries such as Brazil.
Topics: Bibliometrics; Biomedical Research; Brazil; Dental Materials; Inventions; Journalism, Dental; Periodicals as Topic; Societies, Scientific; Technology, Dental; Time Factors
PubMed: 27383712
DOI: 10.1590/1678-775720150560