-
The Angle Orthodontist Jan 2009To evaluate the effectiveness of adhesives used to attach bands to teeth during fixed appliance treatment. (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVE
To evaluate the effectiveness of adhesives used to attach bands to teeth during fixed appliance treatment.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
Electronic databases, conference proceedings and the Internet were searched. There was no restriction with regard to publication status or language of publication. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and controlled clinical trials (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. All review authors were involved in study selection, validity assessment, and data extraction. Disagreements were resolved by discussion. Comparisons were made between the main types of adhesive.
RESULTS
Five RCTs and three CCTs were identified, all 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; and one trial compared chemically cured glass ionomer with a chemically cured glass polyphosphonate. Data analysis was often inappropriate within the studies. Meta-analysis was not feasible.
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: Compomers; Controlled Clinical Trials as Topic; Dental Cements; Glass Ionomer Cements; Humans; Light-Curing of Dental Adhesives; Molar; Organophosphates; Orthodontic Wires; Self-Curing of Dental Resins; Zinc Phosphate Cement
PubMed: 19123702
DOI: 10.2319/081307-377.1 -
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 -
Materials (Basel, Switzerland) Nov 2021: Conventional composites are largely used in pediatric restorative dentistry and demonstrate successful clinical outcomes. However, the need for simplification of... (Review)
Review
: Conventional composites are largely used in pediatric restorative dentistry and demonstrate successful clinical outcomes. However, the need for simplification of operative steps in young or uncooperative children demands reliable alternatives. Therefore, the aim of the present systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate the in vitro bond strength of glass ionomer cements (GICs) and self-adhesive flowable composites (SFCs) on deciduous teeth. : A comprehensive literature search according to the PRISMA checklist was manually and electronically performed by two independent reviewers through the following databases: MEDLINE/PubMed, Google Scholar, Scopus, and Embase, to include in vitro studies comparing GICs and SFCs bond strength values of restorations on primary teeth. In addition, three groups of meta-analyses were conducted using random-effects models. : Three articles meeting the inclusion criteria were selected and subjected to both qualitative and quantitative assessment. No statistically significant difference was found between SFC versus GIC; however, both groups significantly differed with conventional flowable composites (CFs). : Despite the absence of significant difference in bond strength values, SFCs may be considered a valid alternative to GICs in the restoration of deciduous teeth, although CFs proved better in vitro performances.
PubMed: 34772221
DOI: 10.3390/ma14216694 -
Journal of Orthodontics Jun 2005To evaluate the effectiveness of fluoride in preventing white spot lesion (WSL) demineralization during orthodontic treatment and compare all modes of fluoride delivery. (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the effectiveness of fluoride in preventing white spot lesion (WSL) demineralization during orthodontic treatment and compare all modes of fluoride delivery.
DATA SOURCES
The search strategy for the review was carried out according to the standard Cochrane systematic review methodology. The following databases were searched for RCTs or CCTs: Cochrane Clinical Trials Register, Cochrane Oral Health Group Specialized Trials Register, MEDLINE and EMBASE. Inclusion and exclusion criteria were applied when considering studies to be included. Authors of trials were contacted for further data.
DATA SELECTION
The primary outcome of the review was the presence or absence of WSL by patient at the end of treatment. Secondary outcomes included any quantitative assessment of enamel mineral loss or lesion depth.
DATA EXTRACTION
Six reviewers independently, in duplicate, extracted data, including an assessment of the methodological quality of each trial.
DATA SYNTHESIS
Fifteen trials provided data for this review, although none fulfilled all the methodological quality assessment criteria. One study found that a daily NaF mouthrinse reduced the severity of demineralization surrounding an orthodontic appliance (lesion depth difference -70.0 microm; 95% CI -118.2 to -21.8 microm). One study found that use of a glass ionomer cement (GIC) for bracket bonding reduced the prevalence of WSL (Peto OR 0.35; 95% CI 0.15-0.84) compared with a composite resin. None of the studies fulfilled all of the methodological quality assessment criteria.
CONCLUSIONS
There is some evidence that the use of a daily NaF mouthrinse or a GIC for bonding brackets might reduce the occurrence and severity of WSL during orthodontic treatment. More high quality, clinical research is required into the different modes of delivering fluoride to the orthodontic patient.
Topics: Cariostatic Agents; Dental Bonding; Dental Caries; Fluorides; Glass Ionomer Cements; Humans; Mouthwashes; Orthodontic Appliances; Tooth Demineralization
PubMed: 15994984
DOI: 10.1179/146531205225021033 -
Journal of Dentistry Oct 2022To investigate the effectiveness of glass ionomer cement (GIC) restorations on preventing new caries in primary or permanent dentitions compared with other types of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVE
To investigate the effectiveness of glass ionomer cement (GIC) restorations on preventing new caries in primary or permanent dentitions compared with other types of restorations.
DATA
Randomized controlled clinical trials evaluating caries experience increment or caries incidence in patients with GIC restorations, including conventional GIC (CGIC) and resin-modified GIC (RMGIC) restorations, were included.
SOURCES
A systematic search of publications in English was conducted in PubMed/Medline, Web of Science, Cochrane, and Scopus databases.
STUDY SELECTION/RESULTS
This review included 10 studies reporting caries preventive effect of GIC restorations and selected 5 studies for meta-analysis. Patients with GIC restorations showed lower caries incidence compared with other restorations in primary and permanent dentition [RR=0.67, 95% CI:0.55-0.82, p < 0.0001]. Patients with CGIC restorations showed lower caries incidence compared with amalgam restorations [RR=0.57, 95% CI:0.43-0.76, p = 0.0001] and RMGIC restorations [RR=0.70, 95% CI:0.56-0.87, p = 0.002], but no statistical difference with composite resin restorations [RR=0.73, 95% CI:0.51-1.04, p = 0.08] in primary dentition. Patients with RMGIC restorations showed no statistical differences of caries incidence compared with composite resin restorations in primary and permanent dentition [RR=0.83, 95% CI:0.56-1.22, p = 0.33].
CONCLUSIONS
GIC restorations presented a better preventive effect on new caries than other restorations did in primary and permanent dentitions. CGIC restorations presented a better caries preventive effect on new caries than RMGIC and amalgam restorations in primary dentitions did. RMGIC restorations showed similar preventing effect on new caries with composite resin restorations in primary and permanent dentitions.
CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE
This review affirmed the potential of GIC in preventing new caries development in the dentition.
Topics: Acrylic Resins; Composite Resins; Dental Caries; Dental Caries Susceptibility; Dental Restoration, Permanent; Glass Ionomer Cements; Humans; Silicon Dioxide
PubMed: 36038075
DOI: 10.1016/j.jdent.2022.104272 -
Journal of Conservative Dentistry : JCD 2022Endodontic success depends on complete sealing of the root canal orifice to prevent re-infection and re-Contamination of the treated teeth through microleakage.... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Endodontic success depends on complete sealing of the root canal orifice to prevent re-infection and re-Contamination of the treated teeth through microleakage. Intra-orifice barrier material provides a seal against micro-organisms, its by-products thus, preventing microleakage and subsequent endodontic failure. Several studies have been done to evaluate microleakage after placing various materials as IOB, but still there is no standardization for the same. Thus, this systematic review was conducted to evaluate the microleakage associated with mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA), composite, and glass ionomer cement (GIC) when used as IOB material.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Protocol was formulated in accordance with PRISMA checklist 2020 and registered on PROSPERO (CRD42021226225). Electronic search from databases such as Medline/PubMed, Scopus, EBSCOhost, Embase, Google Scholar, and Cochrane were performed from the year 2000-2020. and studies evaluating coronal microleakage after placing IOB material using methylene blue dye penetration test under a stereomicroscope were included. A total of 5 studies were included in the systematic review. After assessing the risk of bias using customized criteria referred from JBI critical appraisal tool, characteristics of the included studies, reason for exclusion of the studies, and data extraction sheet were prepared.
RESULTS
All studies included in this systematic review reported that placement of an IOB material significantly reduces microleakage as compared to control groups. MTA used as an IOB showed less microleakage than composite and GIC.
CONCLUSION
MTA as IOB material demonstrated the least microleakage studies. However, in this systematic review, only studies were included. Thus, more studies in the form of randomized control trials are required to give a conclusive and definitive result.
PubMed: 36591578
DOI: 10.4103/jcd.jcd_377_22 -
International Journal of Molecular... Apr 2021Some authors have been proposing the use of cavity disinfectants in order to reduce, or even eliminate, the effect of the microorganisms present in a dental cavity... (Review)
Review
Some authors have been proposing the use of cavity disinfectants in order to reduce, or even eliminate, the effect of the microorganisms present in a dental cavity before a restoration is placed. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of different cavity disinfectants on bond strength and clinical success of composite and glass ionomer restorations on primary teeth. The research was conducted using Cochrane Library, PubMed/MEDLINE, SCOPUS, and Web of Science for articles published up to February 2021. The search was performed according to the PICO strategy. The evaluation of the methodological quality of each in vitro study was assessed using the CONSORT checklist for reporting in vitro studies on dental materials. Sixteen in vitro studies and one in situ study fulfilled the inclusion criteria and were analyzed. Chlorhexidine was the most studied cavity disinfectant, and its use does not compromise dentin bonding. Sodium hypochlorite is a promising alternative, but more research on its use is required to clearly state that it can safely be used as a cavity disinfectant for primary teeth. Although other disinfectants were studied, there is a low-level evidence attesting their effects on adhesion, therefore their use should be avoided.
Topics: Adhesiveness; Dental Cavity Preparation; Dentin-Bonding Agents; Disinfectants; Disinfection; Humans; Tooth, Deciduous
PubMed: 33922376
DOI: 10.3390/ijms22094398 -
The Journal of Clinical Pediatric... 2011To perform a systematic review in which the clinical research question for primary teeth with irreversible pulpal pathosis was "how pulpectomies with zinc oxide eugenol... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVE
To perform a systematic review in which the clinical research question for primary teeth with irreversible pulpal pathosis was "how pulpectomies with zinc oxide eugenol (ZOE) paste performed compared to other materials in their clinical and radiographic outcomes after twelve months or more follow-up period.
STUDY DESIGN
A literature survey of the electronic database (1950-2010) used the Medical Subject Headings and free text terms. Forty three references were retrieved and inclusion criteria were applied; 15 articles remained for full-text evaluation. From these, two were selected for data extraction regarding quality characteristics and results.
RESULTS
Selected studies showed moderate or high risk of bias. The overall success of pulpectomy was 80.0% (Calcicur), 60.0% (Sealapex) and varied from 85.0% to 100.0% (ZOE) and 89.0% to 100.0% (Vitapex). Solely Calcicur presented success rate significantly lower when compared to ZOE and Vitapex. These pastes lead to overfilled canals and particles of extruded ZOE were still evident even after the evaluation period. Resorption of Vitapex, Calcicur and Sealapex within the root canal was also reported.
CONCLUSIONS
In primary teeth with irreversible pulpal changes ZOE pulpectomies yielded similar outcome than Vitapex and Sealapex, although there was no agreement with regard to filling materials' resorption.
Topics: Adolescent; Calcium Hydroxide; Child; Child, Preschool; Evidence-Based Dentistry; Humans; Pulpectomy; Pulpitis; Root Canal Filling Materials; Salicylates; Silicones; Tooth, Deciduous; Treatment Outcome; Zinc Oxide-Eugenol Cement
PubMed: 21678664
DOI: 10.17796/jcpd.35.3.y777187463255n34 -
Medical Science Monitor : International... Oct 2014After orthodontic treatment, brackets are debonded and residual adhesive is removed, causing iatrogenic enamel damage. The aim of this study was to review the methods of... (Review)
Review
After orthodontic treatment, brackets are debonded and residual adhesive is removed, causing iatrogenic enamel damage. The aim of this study was to review the methods of orthodontic adhesive removal, find clear evidence, and provide a rationale for this procedure. A literature search was performed in PubMed, Dentistry and Oral Sciences, Scopus, Cochrane, Google, and Google Scholar using keywords: orthodontic adhesive removal, orthodontic debonding, orthodontic clean-up. Studies concerning human enamel roughness or loss from debonding and adhesive removal were considered. Forty-four full-text articles were analyzed and 3 were rejected after detailed reading; finally 41 papers were included. Fifteen qualitative studies, 13 studies based on indices of enamel surface, and 13 quantitative studies were found. No meta-analysis could be performed due to a lack of homogenous quantitative evidence. The most popular tools were tungsten carbide burs, which were faster and more effective than Sof-Lex discs, ultrasonic tools, hand instruments, rubbers, or composite burs. They remove a substantial layer of enamel and roughen its surface, but are less destructive than Arkansas stones, green stones, diamond burs, steel burs, and lasers. Multi-step Sof-Lex discs and pumice slurry are the most predictable enamel polishing tools. Arkansas stones, green stones, diamond burs, steel burs, and lasers should not be used for adhesive removal. The use of tungsten carbide bur requires multistep polishing. Further efforts should be made to find tools and methods for complete removal of adhesive remnants, minimizing enamel loss and achieving a smooth surface.
Topics: Dental Bonding; Dental Cements; Dental Enamel; Humans; Orthodontics
PubMed: 25327612
DOI: 10.12659/MSM.890912 -
BioMed Research International 2022The main cause of unsuccess in endodontically treated teeth (ETT) is due to bacterial recontamination. The placement of an intraorifice barrier (IOB) has been proposed... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
The main cause of unsuccess in endodontically treated teeth (ETT) is due to bacterial recontamination. The placement of an intraorifice barrier (IOB) has been proposed for preventing this event in cases that the restoration is in an inadequate condition, enhancing the possibilities for predictable long-term success in endodontic therapy. . To evaluate through a systematic review and meta-analysis if it would be necessary to place an IOB in ETT. . The present review is in accordance with the PRISMA 2020 Statement and is registered in the Open Science Framework. Two blinded reviewers carried out a comprehensive search in four databases up to July 10, 2021: MEDLINE, Scopus, Embase, and Web of Science. Eligible studies were the ones which evaluated the use of an IOB in ETT in reducing microleakage with any material of choice and with any methods employed. Only in vitro studies published in English were included. . A total of thirty in vitro studies were included in the qualitative synthesis, and seven of those were included in the quantitative analyses evaluating the following materials: bioceramic cement, glass-ionomer cement (GIC), and resin-based composite (RBC). Most of the included studies placed an IOB at a 3 mm depth. Reduction in microleakage was observed when an IOB was placed, regardless of the material employed ( ≤ 0.01). Among the materials, GIC and RBC performed similarly ( > 0.05), with the bioceramic subgroup being statistically superior to the GIC subgroup ( ≤ 0.05). . Although well-designed randomized clinical trials are required, the placement of an intraorifice barrier can significantly reduce microleakage in endodontically treated teeth, and the use of bioceramics as IOB seems to be the best available material for this purpose.
Topics: Glass Ionomer Cements; Humans; Tooth, Nonvital
PubMed: 35097115
DOI: 10.1155/2022/2789073