-
Periodontology 2000 Feb 2022Both fixed and removable implant-supported prostheses are well-established methods for replacing missing teeth in partially or fully edentulous patients. Numerous... (Review)
Review
Both fixed and removable implant-supported prostheses are well-established methods for replacing missing teeth in partially or fully edentulous patients. Numerous systematic reviews have been performed in recent years to evaluate the survival and complication rates of implant-retained fixed dental prostheses and implant-retained overdentures, displaying high 5-year survival rates ranging from 97.1% for fixed dental prostheses to 95%-100% for implant-retained overdentures. However, the survival rates only represent the prostheses remaining in use for a defined follow-up time, and do not account for the potential prosthetic complications that may have arisen and influence the general success of the implant treatment. The most common technical complications of fixed implant-retained single crowns are crown fracture, fractures of ceramic implant abutments, and esthetic problems. The predominant technical complication at multiple-unit, implant-retained fixed dental prostheses is fracture/chipping of the veneering ceramic. Reported technical complications for implant-retained overdentures are overdenture fracture or chipping of the veneer materials, whereas mechanical complications include implant fracture, attachment failure, and attachment housing or insert complications. To reduce the risk of such failures, a comprehensive pretreatment diagnostic work-up is essential, including defining the prosthetic goal with the aid of a wax-up or set-up and the associated ideal, prosthetically oriented three-dimensional implant position. Furthermore, selection of the ideal type of prosthesis, including the respective implant components and materials, is important for clinical long-term treatment success.
Topics: Crowns; Dental Implantation; Dental Implants; Dental Prosthesis Design; Dental Prosthesis, Implant-Supported; Dental Restoration Failure; Humans
PubMed: 35103329
DOI: 10.1111/prd.12416 -
International Journal of Environmental... Sep 2021The need to rehabilitate severely compromised teeth is frequent in daily clinical practice. Tooth extraction and replacement with dental implant represents a common... (Review)
Review
The need to rehabilitate severely compromised teeth is frequent in daily clinical practice. Tooth extraction and replacement with dental implant represents a common treatment choice. However, the survival rate for implants is inferior to teeth, even if severely damaged but properly treated. In order to reestablish a physiological supracrestal tissue attachment of damaged teeth and to arrange an efficient ferrule effect, three options can be considered: crown lengthening, orthodontic extrusion and surgical extrusion. Crown lengthening is considered an invasive technique that causes the removal of part of the bony support, while both orthodontic and surgical extrusion can avoid this inconvenience and can be used successfully in the treatment of severely damaged teeth. The aim of the present narrative review is to compare advantages, disadvantages, time of therapy required, contraindications and complications of both techniques.
Topics: Crowns; Humans; Orthodontic Extrusion; Tooth; Tooth Fractures
PubMed: 34574454
DOI: 10.3390/ijerph18189530 -
Journal of Oral Science Jun 2021This narrative review aims to provide an overview of recent studies and case reports on three-dimensional (3D) printing, and to verify the applicability of 3D printers... (Review)
Review
This narrative review aims to provide an overview of recent studies and case reports on three-dimensional (3D) printing, and to verify the applicability of 3D printers in the field of dental prostheses. This review was performed by conducting a search of PubMed. The clinical application of fabricating a prosthesis made with cobalt-chromium is considered possible depending on the material and hardware of the 3D printer. However, it is currently difficult to assess the clinical use of 3D-printed zirconia crowns. Further research is required, such as verification of materials used, margin morphology, and hardware. Clinically acceptable results have been reported for patterns using 3D printers. Interim restorations made using a 3D printer have been reported with good results that are considered clinically usable. Dentures made with 3D printers need further verification in terms of strength and deformation. Custom trays made with 3D printers are clinically useful, however, issues remain with design time and effort. Although several studies have reported the usefulness of 3D printers, further verification is required since 3D printers are still considered new technology.
Topics: Crowns; Printing, Three-Dimensional; Prosthodontics
PubMed: 34078769
DOI: 10.2334/josnusd.21-0072 -
International Journal of Environmental... Feb 2022The aim of this systematic review was to summarize the literature regarding the clinical performance of zirconia crowns for primary teeth. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVE
The aim of this systematic review was to summarize the literature regarding the clinical performance of zirconia crowns for primary teeth.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Four electronic databases, Ovid, PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science were searched. Clinical, observational, and laboratory studies were included. Studies that assessed the performance of zirconia crowns for primary teeth using outcomes such as gingival and periodontal health, parental satisfaction, color stability, crown retention, contour, fracture resistance, marginal integrity, surface roughness, and recurrent caries were included. Risk of bias was assessed using different assessment tools depending on the type of the assessed study.
RESULTS
Out of the 2400 retrieved records, 73 full-text records were assessed for eligibility. Thirty-six studies were included for qualitative analysis. The included studies reported that zirconia crowns for primary teeth were associated with better gingival and periodontal health, good retention, high fracture resistance, color stability, high parental acceptance, good marginal adaptation, smooth cosmetic surface, and no recurrent caries.
CONCLUSION
Zirconia crowns are promising alternative to other restorative materials and crowns in the field of pediatric dentistry. They showed higher properties and performance in different clinical aspects and great parental satisfaction.
Topics: Child; Crowns; Gingiva; Humans; Tooth, Deciduous; Zirconium
PubMed: 35270531
DOI: 10.3390/ijerph19052838 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Sep 2015Endodontic treatment involves removal of the dental pulp and its replacement by a root canal filling. Restoration of root filled teeth can be challenging due to... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Endodontic treatment involves removal of the dental pulp and its replacement by a root canal filling. Restoration of root filled teeth can be challenging due to structural differences between vital and non-vital root-filled teeth. Direct restoration involves placement of a restorative material e.g. amalgam or composite, directly into the tooth. Indirect restorations consist of cast metal or ceramic (porcelain) crowns. The choice of restoration depends on the amount of remaining tooth, and may influence durability and cost. The decision to use a post and core in addition to the crown is clinician driven. The comparative clinical performance of crowns or conventional fillings used to restore root-filled teeth is unknown. This review updates the original, which was published in 2012.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of restoration of endodontically treated teeth (with or without post and core) by crowns versus conventional filling materials.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the following databases: the Cochrane Oral Health Group's Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE via OVID, EMBASE via OVID, CINAHL via EBSCO, LILACS via BIREME. We also searched the reference lists of articles and ongoing trials registries.There were no restrictions regarding language or date of publication. The search is up-to-date as of 26 March 2015.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi-randomised controlled trials in participants with permanent teeth that have undergone endodontic treatment. Single full coverage crowns compared with any type of filling materials for direct restoration or indirect partial restorations (e.g. inlays and onlays). Comparisons considered the type of post and core used (cast or prefabricated post), if any.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently extracted data from the included trial and assessed its risk of bias. We carried out data analysis using the 'treatment as allocated' patient population, expressing estimates of intervention effect for dichotomous data as risk ratios, with 95% confidence intervals (CI).
MAIN RESULTS
We included one trial, which was judged to be at high risk of performance, detection and attrition bias. The 117 participants with a root-filled, premolar tooth restored with a carbon fibre post, were randomised to either a full coverage metal-ceramic crown or direct adhesive composite restoration. None experienced a catastrophic failure (i.e. when the restoration cannot be repaired), although only 104 teeth were included in the final, three-year assessment. There was no clear difference between the crown and composite group and the composite only group for non-catastrophic failures of the restoration (1/54 versus 3/53; RR 0.33; 95% CI 0.04 to 3.05) or failures of the post (2/54 versus 1/53; RR 1.96; 95% CI 0.18 to 21.01) at three years. The quality of the evidence for these outcomes is very low. There was no evidence available for any of our secondary outcomes: patient satisfaction and quality of life, incidence or recurrence of caries, periodontal health status, and costs.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is insufficient evidence to assess the effects of crowns compared to conventional fillings for the restoration of root-filled teeth. Until more evidence becomes available, clinicians should continue to base decisions about how to restore root-filled teeth on their own clinical experience, whilst taking into consideration the individual circumstances and preferences of their patients.
Topics: Adult; Crowns; Dental Restoration, Permanent; Female; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Post and Core Technique; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Tooth Root; Tooth, Nonvital
PubMed: 26403154
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD009109.pub3 -
Journal of Dentistry May 2020This study aimed to assess the survival and success of glass fiber posts compared to cast metal posts in teeth without ferrule. (Randomized Controlled Trial)
Randomized Controlled Trial
OBJECTIVE
This study aimed to assess the survival and success of glass fiber posts compared to cast metal posts in teeth without ferrule.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
An equivalency, prospective, double-blind (patient and outcome evaluator) randomized controlled trial (RCT) with parallel groups was designed to compare the clinical performance of cast metal and glass fiber posts cemented in endodontically treated teeth without ferrule (NCT01461239). Teeth were randomly allocated to the glass fiber or cast-metal post groups. All teeth were restored with single metal-ceramic crowns. Kaplan-Meier analysis with the log-rank test was used to test the success and survival between glass fiber and cast metal posts considering a cut-off value of P = 0.05. The annual failure rates were calculated considering the survival data for all restorations and separated by type of post after five years.
RESULTS
A hundred and nineteen patients and 183 posts (72 cast metal posts and 111 glass fiber posts) were analyzed. The median follow-up was 62 months (IQR 37-81). The log-rank test for success (P = 0.26) and survival (P = 0.63) analyses did not present statistically significant differences. The AFR of both posts after 5 years was 1.5%. Considering the posts separately and after 5 years, cast metal posts presented AFR of 1.2% and glass fiber posts AFR of 1.7%. Most failures were in posterior teeth (16/23), 10 failures were classified as root fractures and 5 as post debonding. The follow-up rate was 95.3%.
CONCLUSIONS
Glass fiber and cast metal posts showed good and similar clinical performance.
CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE
Results of this randomized controlled trial can help dentists to answer how the best technique to rehabilitate endodontically treated teeth with no remaining coronal wall.
Topics: Composite Resins; Crowns; Dental Stress Analysis; Glass; Humans; Metals; Post and Core Technique; Tooth Fractures; Tooth, Nonvital
PubMed: 32302640
DOI: 10.1016/j.jdent.2020.103334 -
Journal of Periodontology Oct 2019The incidence of a peri-implant soft tissue dehiscence/deficiency (PSTD) is not a rare finding. Despite multiple previous attempts aimed at correcting the PSTDs, a...
BACKGROUND
The incidence of a peri-implant soft tissue dehiscence/deficiency (PSTD) is not a rare finding. Despite multiple previous attempts aimed at correcting the PSTDs, a classification of these conditions has not yet been proposed. This lack in the literature may also lead to discrepancies in the reported treatment outcomes and thus misinform the clinician or the readers. The aim of the present article was therefore to present a classification of peri-implant PSTD at a single implant site.
METHODS
Four classes of PSTDs were discussed based on the position of the gingival margin of the implant-supported crown in relation to the homologous natural tooth. In addition, the bucco-lingual position of the implant head was also taken into consideration. Each class was further subdivided based on the height of the anatomical papillae.
RESULTS
Subsequently, for each respective category a surgical approach (including bilaminar techniques, the combined prosthetic-surgical approach or soft tissue augmentation with a submerged healing) was also suggested.
CONCLUSION
This paper provides a new classification system for describing PSTDs at single implant sites, with the appropriate recommended treatment protocol.
Topics: Crowns; Dental Implantation, Endosseous; Dental Implants, Single-Tooth; Dental Prosthesis, Implant-Supported; Esthetics, Dental; Tooth Crown; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 31087334
DOI: 10.1002/JPER.18-0616 -
International Endodontic Journal Apr 2022Consensus on the treatment of choice for complicated crown fractures of teeth is limited. Recent guidance recommends vital-pulp-therapy; however, the preferred type is... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Consensus on the treatment of choice for complicated crown fractures of teeth is limited. Recent guidance recommends vital-pulp-therapy; however, the preferred type is not specified. Higher success rates for pulpotomy compared to pulp-capping have been documented, which suggests pulpotomy may be a preferable option for complicated crown-fractures.
OBJECTIVES
The purpose of this systematic review was to determine the success rate of pulpotomy (partial and complete) on teeth that suffered complicated crown fractures.
PARTICIPANTS
patients who have suffered a complicated crown fracture to an anterior permanent tooth.
INTERVENTION
pulpotomy (partial or complete). Comparator: pulp-capping or root canal treatment.
OUTCOME
combined clinical and radiographic success at or after 12 months.
METHODS
A systematic literature using key search terms was conducted using PubMed, Web of Science and Cochrane-Central-Register-of-Controlled-Trials (CENTRAL) as well as a grey literature search from inception to May 2021 and without language restricted to English. Strict inclusion criteria were applied. A standardized tool with defined criteria to assess the risk of bias in each study was used. For non-randomized comparative trials, the Robins-I tool was used while the Newcastle-Ottawa scale was used for non-comparative non-randomized studies.
RESULTS
Seven retrospective clinical studies were included. The studies reported high success rates for pulpotomy with overall success ranges for partial or complete pulpotomy ranging from 75% to 96%. One study compared the success rates of pulpotomy to an alternative treatment option pulp capping (90.9% vs. 67%, respectively). Due to the lack of homogeneity in the included studies, a meta-analysis was not possible.
DISCUSSION
This review highlights the limited evidence based for the current guidance on treatment of complicated crown fractures. The findings of the review indicate high success rates for pulpotomy; however, there is a moderate risk of bias and small sample sizes in the included studies with the result that the overall results should be interpreted with caution.
CONCLUSION
Within the limitations of this review, the benefits and high success rates reported for partial pulpotomy suggest this procedure, rather than pulp-capping, should be considered as the treatment of choice for both immature and mature teeth that have suffered complicated crown-fractures.
Topics: Crowns; Dental Pulp Capping; Dentition, Permanent; Humans; Pulpotomy; Retrospective Studies; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 35076954
DOI: 10.1111/iej.13690 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Dec 2015Crowns for primary molars are preformed and come in a variety of sizes and materials to be placed over decayed or developmentally defective teeth. They can be made... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Crowns for primary molars are preformed and come in a variety of sizes and materials to be placed over decayed or developmentally defective teeth. They can be made completely of stainless steel (know as 'preformed metal crowns' or PMCs), or to give better aesthetics, may be made of stainless steel with a white veneer cover or made wholly of a white ceramic material. In most cases, teeth are trimmed for the crowns to be fitted conventionally using a local anaesthetic. However, in the case of the Hall Technique, PMCs are pushed over the tooth with no local anaesthetic, carious tissue removal or tooth preparation. Crowns are recommended for restoring primary molar teeth that have had a pulp treatment, are very decayed or are badly broken down. However, few dental practitioners use them in clinical practice. This review updates the original review published in 2007.
OBJECTIVES
Primary objectiveTo evaluate the clinical effectiveness and safety of all types of preformed crowns for restoring primary teeth compared with conventional filling materials (such as amalgam, composite, glass ionomer, resin modified glass ionomer and compomers), other types of crowns or methods of crown placement, non-restorative caries treatment or no treatment. Secondary objectiveTo explore whether the extent of decay has an effect on the clinical outcome of primary teeth restored with all types of preformed crowns compared with those restored with conventional filling materials.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the following electronic databases: Cochrane Oral Health Group Trials Register (to 21 January 2015), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; The Cochrane Library, 2014, Issue 12), MEDLINE via Ovid (1946 to 21 January 2015) and EMBASE via Ovid (1980 to 21 January 2015). We searched the US National Institutes of Health Trials Register (http://clinicaltrials.gov) and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform for ongoing trials and Open Grey for grey literature (to 21 January 2015). No restrictions were placed on the language or date of publication when searching the databases.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that assessed the effectiveness of crowns compared with fillings, other types of crowns, non-restorative approaches or no treatment in children with untreated tooth decay in one or more primary molar teeth. We would also have included trials comparing different methods of fitting crowns.For trials to be considered for this review, the success or failure of the interventions and other clinical outcomes had to be reported at least six months after intervention (with the exception of 'pain/discomfort during treatment and immediately postoperatively').
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently assessed the title and abstracts for each article from the search results. and independently assessed the full text for each potentially relevant study. At least two authors assessed risk of bias and extracted data using a piloted data extraction form.
MAIN RESULTS
We included five studies that evaluated three comparisons. Four studies compared crowns with fillings; two of them compared conventional PMCs with open sandwich restorations, and two compared PMCs fitted using the Hall Technique with fillings. One of these studies included a third arm, which allowed the comparison of PMCs (fitted using the Hall Technique) versus non-restorative caries treatment. In the two studies using crowns fitted using the conventional method, all teeth had undergone pulpotomy prior to the crown being placed. The final study compared two different types of crowns: PMCs versus aesthetic stainless steel crowns with white veneers. No RCT evidence was found that compared different methods of fitting preformed metal crowns (i.e. Hall Technique versus conventional technique).We considered outcomes reported at the dental appointment or within 24 hours of it, and in the short term (less than 12 months) or long term (12 months or more). Some of our outcomes of interest were not measured in the studies: time to restoration failure or retreatment, patient satisfaction and costs. Crowns versus fillingsAll studies in this comparison used PMCs. One study reported outcomes in the short term and found no reports of major failure or pain in either group. There was moderate quality evidence that the risk of major failure was lower in the crowns group in the long term (risk ratio (RR) 0.18, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.06 to 0.56; 346 teeth in three studies, one conventional and two using Hall Technique). Similarly, there was moderate quality evidence that the risk of pain was lower in the long term for the crown group (RR 0.15, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.67; 312 teeth in two studies).Discomfort associated with the procedure was lower for crowns fitted using the Hall Technique than for fillings (RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.36 to 0.87; 381 teeth) (moderate quality evidence).It is uncertain whether there is a clinically important difference in the risk of gingival bleeding when using crowns rather than fillings, either in the short term (RR 1.69, 95% CI 0.61 to 4.66; 226 teeth) or long term (RR 1.74, 95% CI 0.99 to 3.06; 195 teeth, two studies using PMCs with conventional technique at 12 months) (low quality evidence). Crowns versus non-restorative caries treatmentOnly one study compared PMCs (fitted with the Hall Technique) with non-restorative caries treatment; the evidence quality was very low and we are therefore we are uncertain about the estimates. Metal crowns versus aesthetic crownsOne split-mouth study (11 participants) compared PMCs versus aesthetic crowns (stainless steel with white veneers). It provided very low quality evidence so no conclusions could be drawn.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Crowns placed on primary molar teeth with carious lesions, or following pulp treatment, are likely to reduce the risk of major failure or pain in the long term compared to fillings. Crowns fitted using the Hall Technique may reduce discomfort at the time of treatment compared to fillings. The amount and quality of evidence for crowns compared to non-restorative caries, and for metal compared with aesthetic crowns, is very low. There are no RCTs comparing crowns fitted conventionally versus using the Hall Technique.
Topics: Child; Child, Preschool; Crowns; Dental Care for Children; Dental Caries; Dental Restoration Failure; Dental Restoration, Permanent; Female; Humans; Male; Molar; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Tooth, Deciduous
PubMed: 26718872
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD005512.pub3 -
Medicine Oct 2019Although all-ceramic crowns have excellent biocompatibility and esthetic appearance, chipping may occur. The mechanical properties of monolithic zirconia restorative...
Although all-ceramic crowns have excellent biocompatibility and esthetic appearance, chipping may occur. The mechanical properties of monolithic zirconia restorative material are superior to those of all-ceramic restorative materials, and chipping caused by chewing hard foods could be avoided. This study aimed to evaluate the clinical efficacy of monolithic zirconia crowns for posterior teeth restorations.A total of 46 patients requiring posterior teeth restorations involving 49 teeth were treated with monolithic zirconia crown procedure. The treatment results were evaluated according to the modified California Dental Association criteria immediately after the procedure, and at 2, 24, 48, and 96 weeks after the procedure. The plaque index, gingival index, probing depth, crown marginal integrity, and attrition of the abutment teeth, antagonist teeth, corresponding contralateral teeth, and antagonist of the corresponding contralateral teeth were assessed. The patients were followed for up to 96 weeks.The marginal adaptation results of all 46 patients were evaluated as excellent, resulting in an excellent rate of 100%. Regarding the crown color match, only 3 cases (6.1%) were evaluated as acceptable. Marginal adaptation, anatomic form, crown margin integrity, color match, and gross fracture did not show significant differences compared with the different time points (P = .999). Surface texture at different time did not change significantly (P = .807). During the 96-week follow-up, 1 crack in the antagonist teeth was found in 1 patient. There were no significant differences in wear of the antagonist teeth at different time points (P = .972). The rate of "excellent" evaluation for crown restorations was 93.9% to 100%.The monolithic zirconia crown had no detectable adverse effects on the periodontal tissues, and the antagonist teeth attrition was small. Therefore, it has good potential in the clinical application of posterior teeth restorations in the short term.
Topics: Crowns; Dental Health Surveys; Dental Materials; Dental Prosthesis Design; Dental Restoration Failure; Female; Humans; Male; Zirconium
PubMed: 31577743
DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000017385