-
Journal of Clinical Medicine Jul 2020The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate the clinical performance of tooth-borne partial and full-coverage fixed dental prosthesis fabricated... (Review)
Review
Clinical Performance of Partial and Full-Coverage Fixed Dental Restorations Fabricated from Hybrid Polymer and Ceramic CAD/CAM Materials: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate the clinical performance of tooth-borne partial and full-coverage fixed dental prosthesis fabricated using hybrid polymer and ceramic CAD/CAM materials regarding their biologic, technical and esthetical outcomes. PICOS search strategy was applied using MEDLINE and were searched for RCTs and case control studies by two reviewers using MeSH Terms. Bias risk was evaluated using the Cochrane collaboration tool and Newcastle-Ottawa assessment scale. A meta-analysis was conducted to calculate the mean long-term survival difference of both materials at two different periods (≤24, ≥36 months(m)). Mean differences in biologic, technical and esthetical complications of partial vs. full crown reconstructions were analyzed using software package R ( 0.05). 28 studies included in the systematic review and 25 studies in the meta-analysis. The overall survival rate was 99% (0.95-1.00, ≤24 m) and dropped to 95% (0.87-0.98, ≥36 m), while the overall success ratio was 88% (0.54-0.98; ≤24 m) vs. 77% (0.62-0.88; ≥36 m). No significance, neither for the follow-up time points, nor for biologic, technical and esthetical (88% vs. 77%; 90% vs. 74%; 96% vs. 95%) outcomes was overserved. A significance was found for the technical/clinical performance between full 93% (0.88-0.96) and partial 64% (0.34-0.86) crowns. The biologic success rate of partial crowns with 69% (0.42-0.87) was lower, but not significant compared to 91% (0.79-0.97) of full crowns. The esthetical success rate of partial crowns with 90% (0.65-0.98) was lower, but not significant compared to 99% (0.92-1.00) of full crowns.
PubMed: 32635470
DOI: 10.3390/jcm9072107 -
Acta Stomatologica Croatica Mar 2021Ion-incorporated zeolite is a widely used antimicrobial material studied for various dental applications. At present, there is no other systematic review that evaluates... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVE
Ion-incorporated zeolite is a widely used antimicrobial material studied for various dental applications. At present, there is no other systematic review that evaluates the effectiveness of zeolite in all dental materials. The purpose of this study was to review all available literature that analyzed the antimicrobial effects and/or mechanical properties of zeolite as a restorative material in dentistry.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
Following PRISMA guidelines, an exhaustive search of PubMed, Ovid Medline, Scopus, Embase, and the Dentistry & Oral Sciences Source was conducted. No language or time restrictions were used and the study was conducted from June 1, 2020 to August 17, 2020. Only full text articles were selected that pertained to the usage of zeolite in dental materials including composite resin, bonding agents, cements, restorative root material, cavity base material, prosthesis, implants, and endodontics.
RESULTS
At the beginning of the study, 1534 studies were identified, of which 687 duplicate records were excluded. After screening for the title, abstract, and full texts, 35 articles remained and were included in the qualitative synthesis. An Inter-Rater Reliability (IRR) test, which included a percent user agreement and reliability percent, was conducted for each of the 35 articles chosen.
CONCLUSION
Although ion-incorporated zeolite may enhance the antimicrobial properties of dental materials, the mechanical properties of some materials, such as MTA and acrylic resin, may be compromised. Therefore, since the decrease in mechanical properties depends on zeolite concentration in the restorative material, it is generally recommended to add 0.2-2% zeolite by weight.
PubMed: 33867540
DOI: 10.15644/asc55/1/9 -
Biomimetics (Basel, Switzerland) Aug 2023Additive manufacturing (three-dimensional (3D) printing) has become a leading manufacturing technique in dentistry due to its various advantages. However, its potential... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Additive manufacturing (three-dimensional (3D) printing) has become a leading manufacturing technique in dentistry due to its various advantages. However, its potential applications for dental ceramics are still being explored. Zirconia, among ceramics, has increasing popularity and applications in dentistry mostly due to its excellent properties. Although subtractive manufacturing (3D milling) is considered the most advanced technology for the fabrication of zirconia restorations, certain disadvantages are associated with it.
METHODS
A systematic review was piloted to compare the clinical performance of zirconium crowns that were fabricated using three-dimensional (3D) milling and 3D printing. A meta-analysis was performed, and studies published up to November 2022 were identified. The terms searched were "Zirconium crowns", "3D printing", "CAD/CAM" (Computer-Aided Design and Computer-Aided Manufacturing), "Milling", "dental crowns", and "3D milling". The characteristics that were compared were the year in which the study was published, study design, age of the patient, country, the number of crowns, the type of crown fabrication, marginal integrity, caries status, and outcomes. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were used to structure this systematic review. Out of eleven hundred and fifty titles identified after a primary search, nine articles were included in the quantitative analysis. The research question based on PICO/PECO (Participant, Intervention/exposure, Comparison, and Outcome) was "Do 3D-printed and milled (P) zirconia crowns and FDPs (I) have a better survival rate (O) when conventional prosthesis is also an option (C)"? The data collected were tabulated and compared, and the risk of bias and meta-analysis were later performed. Only nine articles (clinical research) were selected for the study. Since there were no clinical studies on the 3D printing of zirconium crowns, six in vitro studies were considered for the comparison. Zirconium crowns in the milling group had an average minimum follow-up of 6 months.
RESULTS
A moderate risk of bias was found, and survival was significant. A high heterogeneity level was noted among the studies. Marginal integrity, periodontal status, and survival rate were high. Linear regression depicted no statistical correlation between the type of cement used and the survival rate.
CONCLUSIONS
It can be concluded that the milled crowns had a higher performance and satisfactory clinical survival.
PubMed: 37754145
DOI: 10.3390/biomimetics8050394 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Apr 2018Bonding of orthodontic brackets to teeth is important to enable effective and efficient treatment with fixed appliances. The problem is bracket failure during treatment... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Bonding of orthodontic brackets to teeth is important to enable effective and efficient treatment with fixed appliances. The problem is bracket failure during treatment which increases operator chairside time and lengthens treatment time. A prolonged treatment is likely to increase the oral health risks of orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances one of which is irreversible enamel decalcification. This is an update of the Cochrane Review first published in 2003. A new full search was conducted on 26 September 2017 but no new studies were identified. We have only updated the search methods section in this new version. The conclusions of this Cochrane Review remain the same.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the effects of different orthodontic adhesives for bonding.
SEARCH METHODS
Cochrane Oral Health's Information Specialist searched the following databases: Cochrane Oral Health's Trials Register (to 26 September 2017), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2017, Issue 8) in the Cochrane Library (searched 26 September 2017), MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to 26 September 2017), and Embase Ovid (1980 to 26 September 2017). The US National Institutes of Health Ongoing Trials Register (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
Trials were selected if they met the following criteria: randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and controlled clinical trials (CCTs) comparing two different adhesive groups. Participants were patients with fixed orthodontic appliances. The interventions were adhesives that bonded stainless steel brackets to all teeth except the molars. The primary outcome was debond or bracket failure.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Data were recorded on decalcification as a secondary outcome, if present. Information regarding methods, participants, interventions, outcome measures and results were extracted in duplicate by pairs of review authors. Since the data were not presented in a form that was amenable to meta-analysis, the results of the review are presented in narrative form only.
MAIN RESULTS
Three trials satisfied the inclusion criteria. A chemical cured composite was compared with a light cured composite (one trial), a conventional glass ionomer cement (one trial) and a polyacid-modified resin composite (compomer) (one trial). The quality of the trial reports was generally poor.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is no clear evidence on which to make a clinical decision of the type of orthodontic adhesive to use.
Topics: Compomers; Decalcification, Pathologic; Dental Bonding; Dental Cements; Glass Ionomer Cements; Humans; Orthodontic Brackets; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 29630138
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD002282.pub2 -
Materials (Basel, Switzerland) Apr 2023Self-adhesive resin cements (SARCs) are used because of their mechanical properties, ease of cementation protocols, and lack of requirements for acid conditioning or... (Review)
Review
Self-adhesive resin cements (SARCs) are used because of their mechanical properties, ease of cementation protocols, and lack of requirements for acid conditioning or adhesive systems. SARCs are generally dual-cured, photoactivated, and self-cured, with a slight increase in acidic pH, allowing self-adhesiveness and increasing resistance to hydrolysis. This systematic review assessed the adhesive strength of SARC systems luted to different substrates and computer-aided design and manufacturing (CAD/CAM) ceramic blocks. The PubMed/MedLine and Science Direct databases were searched using the Boolean formula [((dental or tooth) AND (self-adhesive) AND (luting or cement) AND CAD-CAM) NOT (endodontics or implants)]. Of the 199 articles obtained, 31 were selected for the quality assessment. Lava Ultimate (resin matrix filled with nanoceramic) and Vita Enamic (polymer-infiltrated ceramic) blocks were the most tested. Rely X Unicem 2 was the most tested resin cement, followed by Rely X Unicem > Ultimate > U200, and μTBS was the test most used. The meta-analysis confirmed the substrate-dependent adhesive strength of SARCs, with significant differences between them and between SARCs and conventional resin-based adhesive cement (α < 0.05). SARCs are promising. However, one must be aware of the differences in the adhesive strengths. An appropriate combination of materials must be considered to improve the durability and stability of restorations.
PubMed: 37109832
DOI: 10.3390/ma16082996 -
Clinical, Cosmetic and Investigational... 2020Dental implant is an effective and standardized treatment procedure in the healthcare setting. This study presents a comparison of dental implant reconstruction using... (Review)
Review
PURPOSE
Dental implant is an effective and standardized treatment procedure in the healthcare setting. This study presents a comparison of dental implant reconstruction using screw and cement. It explicitly reviews the studies concerning cement and screws dental implants to determine the efficiency of the two.
PATIENTS AND METHODS
A systematic review was conducted by comprehensively searching electronic literature. The keywords, such as "Screw versus Cement Retained Fixed Implant Supported Reconstructions," "Screw Retained Fixed Implant." "Cement Implant" and "Dental Implant" were used for article searching. Twelve studies were included based on the determined inclusion and exclusion criteria.
RESULTS
No significant difference was found between the screw-retained and cemented retained implant supported reconstructions. Dental implants are associated with complications leading to implant failure based on the type of restoration that is being used; cement-retained restoration and screw-retained restoration. The treatment selection must be based on the significance criteria and the tooth condition.
CONCLUSION
Screw-retained implant-supported reconstructions were found to pose less biological and technological complications. Retention of the tooth is more stable and functional when implantation is selected based on the efficiency of a treatment procedure.
PubMed: 32021476
DOI: 10.2147/CCIDE.S231070 -
Methods and Protocols Jan 2022The most used types of retention of implant-supported prostheses are screw-retained or cement-retained restorations. The advantages and disadvantages of both have been... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
The most used types of retention of implant-supported prostheses are screw-retained or cement-retained restorations. The advantages and disadvantages of both have been identified by various authors over the years. However, cement-retained implant crowns and fixed partial dentures are among the most used types of restorations in implant prostheses, due to their aesthetic and clinical advantages. When cemented prostheses are made on implants, the problem of cement residues is important and often associated with biological implant pathologies. The objective of this research was to establish to what extent the techniques to reduce excess cement really affect the volume of cement residues.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
This review was written following the PRISMA statement; a detailed search was carried out in three different electronic databases-PubMed, Scopus, and Cochrane Library. The inclusion criteria were prospective clinical studies, with at least 10 participants per group, and with at least 6 months of the follow-up period.
RESULTS
There have been many proposals for techniques supposed to reduce the amount of excess cement in the peri-implant sulcus and on the prosthetic components, but of these, which are exceptional in their in vitro capabilities, very few have been clinically validated, and this represents the real limitation and a great lack of knowledge regarding this topic. Three articles met the inclusion criteria, which were analyzed and compared, to obtain the information necessary for the purposes of the systematic review.
DISCUSSION
Extraoral cementation can reduce the excess cement, which, after a normal excess removal procedure, is, nevertheless, of such size that it does not affect the possibility of peri-implant pathologies developing. All these studies concluded that a small amount of cement residue is found in the gingival sulcus, and using eugenol-free oxide cements, the residues were only deposited on the metal surfaces, with a better peri-implant tissues health.
CONCLUSION
Despite the limitations of this study, it was possible to carefully analyze these characteristics and obtain valuable suggestions for daily clinical practice. Resinous cements are considered, due to the free monomers present in them, toxic for the soft tissues. The provisional zinc-oxide cements, also eugenol-free, represent the ideal choice. The different grades of retentive forces provided by these cements do not seem to have clinical effects on the decementation of restorations.
PubMed: 35076562
DOI: 10.3390/mps5010009 -
International Journal of Nanomedicine 2022Non-metallic nanomaterials do not stain enamel or dentin. Most have better biocompatibility than metallic nanomaterials do for management of dental caries. (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Non-metallic nanomaterials do not stain enamel or dentin. Most have better biocompatibility than metallic nanomaterials do for management of dental caries.
OBJECTIVE
The objective of this study is to review the types, properties and potential uses of non-metallic nanomaterials systematically for managing dental caries.
METHODS
Two researchers independently performed a literature search of publications in English using PubMed, Scopus and Web of Science. The keywords used were (nanoparticles OR nanocomposites OR nanomaterials) AND (caries OR tooth decay). They screened the titles and abstracts to identify potentially eligible publications of original research reporting non-metallic nanomaterials for caries management. Then, they retrieved and studied the full text of the identified publications for inclusion in this study.
RESULTS
Out of 2497 resulting publications, this study included 75 of those. The non-metallic nanomaterials used in these publications were categorized as biological organic nanomaterials (n=45), synthetic organic nanomaterials (n=15), carbon-based nanomaterials (n=13) and selenium nanomaterials (n=2). They inhibited bacteria growth and/or promoted remineralization. They could be incorporated in topical agents (29/75, 39%), dental adhesives (11/75, 15%), restorative fillers (4/75, 5%), dental sealant (3/75, 4%), oral drugs (3/75, 4%), toothpastes (2/75, 3%) and functional candies (1/75, 1%). Other publications (22/75, 29%) do not mention specific applications. However, most publications (67/75, 89%) were in vitro studies. Six publications (6/75, 8%) were animal studies, and only two publications (2/75, 3%) were clinical studies.
CONCLUSION
The literature showed non-metallic nanomaterials have antibacterial and/or remineralising properties. The most common type of non-metallic nanomaterials for caries management is organic nanomaterials. Non-metallic nanomaterials can be incorporated into dental sealants, toothpaste, dental adhesives, topical agents and even candies and drugs. However, the majority of the publications are in vitro studies, and only two publications are clinical studies.
Topics: Humans; Dental Caries; Dental Cements
PubMed: 36474525
DOI: 10.2147/IJN.S389038 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Oct 2016Orthodontic treatment involves using fixed or removable appliances (dental braces) to correct the positions of teeth. It has been shown that the quality of treatment... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Orthodontic treatment involves using fixed or removable appliances (dental braces) to correct the positions of teeth. It has been shown that the quality of treatment result obtained with fixed appliances is much better than with removable appliances. Fixed appliances are, therefore, favoured by most orthodontists for treatment. The success of a fixed orthodontic appliance depends on the metal attachments (brackets and bands) being attached securely to the teeth so that they do not become loose during treatment. Brackets are usually attached to the front and side teeth, whereas bands (metal rings that go round the teeth) are more commonly used on the back teeth (molars). A number of adhesives are available to attach bands to teeth and it is important to understand which group of adhesives bond most reliably, as well as reducing or preventing dental decay during the treatment period.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the effectiveness of the adhesives used to attach bands to teeth during fixed appliance treatment, in terms of:(1) how often the bands come off during treatment; and(2) whether they protect the banded teeth against decay during fixed appliance treatment.
SEARCH METHODS
The following electronic databases were searched: Cochrane Oral Health's Trials Register (searched 2 June 2016), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2016, Issue 5) in the Cochrane Library (searched 2 June 2016), MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to 2 June 2016) and EMBASE Ovid (1980 to 2 June 2016). We searched ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform for ongoing trials. No restrictions were placed on the language or date of publication when searching the electronic databases.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised and controlled clinical trials (RCTs and CCTs) (including split-mouth studies) of adhesives used to attach orthodontic bands to molar teeth were selected. Patients with full arch fixed orthodontic appliance(s) who had bands attached to molars were included.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
All review authors were involved in study selection, validity assessment and data extraction without blinding to the authors, adhesives used or results obtained. All disagreements were resolved by discussion.
MAIN RESULTS
Five RCTs and three CCTs were identified as meeting the review's inclusion criteria. All the included trials were of split-mouth design. Four trials compared chemically cured zinc phosphate and chemically cured glass ionomer; three trials compared chemically cured glass ionomer cement with light cured compomer; one trial compared chemically cured glass ionomer with a chemically cured glass phosphonate. Data analysis was often inappropriate within the studies meeting the inclusion criteria.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is insufficient high quality evidence with regard to the most effective adhesive for attaching orthodontic bands to molar teeth. Further RCTs are required.
Topics: Adhesives; Adolescent; Clinical Trials as Topic; Dental Bonding; Dental Caries; Dental Cements; Female; Glass Ionomer Cements; Humans; Male; Molar; Orthodontic Brackets; Orthodontics; Resin Cements; Young Adult; Zinc Phosphate Cement
PubMed: 27779317
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004485.pub4 -
Arthroplasty (London, England) Feb 2021Methyl methacrylate (MMA) is commonly used in the fields of dentistry and orthopaedic surgery. However, there remain concerns for the occupational hazards of MMA,... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Methyl methacrylate (MMA) is commonly used in the fields of dentistry and orthopaedic surgery. However, there remain concerns for the occupational hazards of MMA, particularly during pregnancy and breastfeeding.
METHODS
We performed a systematic review of studies on effects that MMA may have in pregnancy in the context of exposure during orthopaedic surgery and dentistry. Review articles, studies lacking statistical data, single case reports and other evidence level V studies were excluded.
RESULTS
Nine studies were included. One basic science study demonstrated an increase in neuronal cell lysis and shrunken cell bodies when neocortical neurons were exposed to MMA monomer. Three animal studies exposed pregnant rodents to MMA via intraperitoneal injection or inhalation. Exposed fetuses in two studies had an increase in gross abnormalities such as hemangiomas, while there was no increase in teratologic effects in the third study. In dental workers exposed to MMA, two retrospective cohort studies did not find a statistically significant increase in birth defects or miscarriage. After exposure to MMA during total joint arthroplasty, two studies found that MMA levels were undetectable in the mothers' serum or breast milk. One study measuring the airborne levels of MMA during simulated joint arthroplasty found that concentrations never exceeded 1% of the recommended limit set forth by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA).
CONCLUSIONS
Potential teratologic effects of MMA cannot be excluded by existing evidence. However, the typical MMA exposure levels for dental and orthopaedic personnel appear to be substantially less than currently proposed exposure limits.
PubMed: 35236460
DOI: 10.1186/s42836-020-00059-z