-
The Saudi Dental Journal Dec 2020Ceramics can simulate the visual character of the tooth substance successfully and are biocompatible materials. However, a wide range of ceramic materials and systems on... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVES
Ceramics can simulate the visual character of the tooth substance successfully and are biocompatible materials. However, a wide range of ceramic materials and systems on the market are available for use in dentistry. Therefore, it is the aim of this article to provide an overview of dental ceramics, their classifications, methods of construction, and clinically relevant aspects that enable the reader to select the most appropriate ceramic for a particular clinical situation.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
The PubMed (MEDLINE) search engine was used to gather the most recent information on dental ceramics. The search was restricted to a ten-year period (January 1, 2010-December 31, 2019) and only English-language studies. A Boolean search of the PubMed data set was implemented to combine a range of keywords: (ceramics OR all-ceramics OR dental porcelain OR polycrystalline OR porcelain fused to metal OR ceramometal OR procera OR e max OR zirconia OR In-ceram OR Inlays OR Onlays OR Overlays OR Endocrown) AND (survival rate OR success rate OR clinical outcomes OR classification) AND (humans). Studies were also obtained by manual searches and from Google Scholar.
RESULTS
By using this process, 2173 articles and studies were obtained. More studies were also obtained by manual searches and from Google Scholar. The most relevant published studies were chosen and used in the current review.
CONCLUSION
All-ceramic restoration use has increased in recent years. This increase has been attributed to patients' demand for good aesthetics and an improvement in the materials' mechanical and aesthetic properties as well as to required minimally invasive tooth preparation and the methods of fabrication. The success of ceramic restorations depends on several factors, such as selection of material, restoration design, occlusion, and cementation media.
PubMed: 34588757
DOI: 10.1016/j.sdentj.2020.05.004 -
Journal of Conservative Dentistry : JCD 2022Advances in adhesive technologies and escalation in esthetic demands have increased indications for tooth-colored, partial coverage restorations. Recently, material... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Advances in adhesive technologies and escalation in esthetic demands have increased indications for tooth-colored, partial coverage restorations. Recently, material knowledge has evolved, new materials have been developed, and no systematic review has answered the question posed by practitioners: Is the clinical efficacy of resin or ceramic better, for inlay, onlay, and overlay in the long run?
AIM
The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate the clinical performance of ceramic and resin inlays, onlays, and overlays and to identify the complication types associated with the main clinical outcomes.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Two reviewers (VN and AJ) searched PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Central registry of controlled trials for published articles between 1983 and 2020 conforming to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guidelines for systematic reviews. Only clinical studies which met the following criteria were included (1) studies regarding ceramic and resin inlays, onlays, and overlays were included; (2) randomized controlled trials, retrospective or prospective studies conducted in humans; (3) studies with a dropout rate <50% 4) studies with a follow-up higher than 5 years.
RESULTS
Of 1718 articles, 21 articles were selected. At 5 years, the estimated survival rates for resin ( = 129) was 86%, feldspathic porcelain ( = 1048) was 90%, and glass ceramic ( = 2218) was 92%; at 10 years, the survival of resin was 75% ( = 115), feldspathic porcelain was 91% ( = 1829), and glass ceramic was 89% ( = 1075).
CONCLUSION
The meta-regression indicated that ceramic partial coverage restorations (feldspathic porcelain and glass-ceramic) outperformed resin partial coverage restorations both at 5-year and 10-year follow-up. When compared between ceramic types, glass ceramics outperformed feldspathic porcelain at 5 years' follow-up and feldspathic porcelain outperformed glass ceramics at 10 years' follow-up. The failures were mostly due to fractures (6.2%), endodontic problems (3%), secondary caries (1.7%), and debonding which was 0.9%.
PubMed: 36187858
DOI: 10.4103/jcd.jcd_184_22 -
BMC Oral Health Dec 2017Intraoral scanners (IOS) are devices for capturing direct optical impressions in dentistry. The purpose of this narrative review on the use of IOS was to: (1) identify... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Review
BACKGROUND
Intraoral scanners (IOS) are devices for capturing direct optical impressions in dentistry. The purpose of this narrative review on the use of IOS was to: (1) identify the advantages/disadvantages of using optical impressions compared to conventional impressions; (2) investigate if optical impressions are as accurate as conventional impressions; (3) evaluate the differences between the IOS currently available commercially; (4) determine the current clinical applications/limitations in the use of IOS.
METHODS
Electronic database searches were performed using specific keywords and MeSH terms. The searches were confined to full-text articles written in English and published in peer-reviewed journals between January 2007 and June 2017.
RESULTS
One hundred thirty-two studies were included in the present review; among them, 20 were previous literature reviews, 78 were in vivo clinical studies (6 randomized controlled/crossover trials, 31 controlled/comparative studies; 24 cohort studies/case series; 17 case reports) and 34 were in vitro comparative studies.
CONCLUSIONS
Optical impressions reduce patient discomfort; IOS are time-efficient and simplify clinical procedures for the dentist, eliminating plaster models and allowing better communication with the dental technician and with patients; however, with IOS, it can be difficult to detect deep margin lines in prepared teeth and/or in case of bleeding, there is a learning curve, and there are purchasing and managing costs. The current IOS are sufficiently accurate for capturing impressions for fabricating a whole series of prosthetic restorations (inlays/onlays, copings and frameworks, single crowns and fixed partial dentures) on both natural teeth and implants; in addition, they can be used for smile design, and to fabricate posts and cores, removable partial prostheses and obturators. The literature to date does not support the use of IOS in long-span restorations with natural teeth or implants. Finally, IOS can be integrated in implant dentistry for guided surgery and in orthodontics for fabricating aligners and custom-made devices.
Topics: Dental Impression Technique; Humans
PubMed: 29233132
DOI: 10.1186/s12903-017-0442-x -
Journal of Dental Research Feb 2018Digital manufacturing, all-ceramics, and adhesive dentistry are currently the trendiest topics in clinical restorative dentistry. Tooth- and implant-supported fixed... (Review)
Review
Digital manufacturing, all-ceramics, and adhesive dentistry are currently the trendiest topics in clinical restorative dentistry. Tooth- and implant-supported fixed restorations from computer-aided design (CAD)/computer-aided manufacturing (CAM)-fabricated high-strength ceramics-namely, alumina and zirconia-are widely accepted as reliable alternatives to traditional metal-ceramic restorations. Most recent developments have focused on high-translucent monolithic full-contour zirconia restorations, which have become extremely popular in a short period of time, due to physical strength, CAD/CAM fabrication, and low cost. However, questions about proper resin bonding protocols have emerged, as they are critical for clinical success of brittle ceramics and treatment options that rely on adhesive bonds, specifically resin-bonded fixed dental prostheses or partial-coverage restorations such as inlays/onlays and veneers. Resin bonding has long been the gold standard for retention and reinforcement of low- to medium-strength silica-based ceramics but requires multiple pretreatment steps of the bonding surfaces, increasing complexity, and technique sensitivity compared to conventional cementation. Here, we critically review and discuss the evidence on resin bonding related to long-term clinical outcomes of tooth- and implant-supported high-strength ceramic restorations. Based on a targeted literature search, clinical long-term studies indicate that porcelain-veneered alumina or zirconia full-coverage crowns and fixed dental prostheses have high long-term survival rates when inserted with conventional cements. However, most of the selected studies recommend resin bonding and suggest even greater success with composite resins or self-adhesive resin cements, especially for implant-supported restorations. High-strength ceramic resin-bonded fixed dental prostheses have high long-term clinical success rates, especially when designed as a cantilever with only 1 retainer. Proper pretreatment of the bonding surfaces and application of primers or composite resins that contain special adhesive monomers are necessary. To date, there are no clinical long-term data on resin bonding of partial-coverage high-strength ceramic or monolithic zirconia restorations.
Topics: Aluminum Oxide; Ceramics; Computer-Aided Design; Dental Bonding; Dental Prosthesis Design; Dental Stress Analysis; Esthetics, Dental; Resin Cements; Zirconium
PubMed: 28876966
DOI: 10.1177/0022034517729134 -
Biology of keratorefractive surgery- PRK, PTK, LASIK, SMILE, inlays and other refractive procedures.Experimental Eye Research Sep 2020The outcomes of refractive surgical procedures to improve uncorrected vision in patients-including photorefractive keratectomy (PRK), laser in-situ keratomileusis... (Review)
Review
The outcomes of refractive surgical procedures to improve uncorrected vision in patients-including photorefractive keratectomy (PRK), laser in-situ keratomileusis (LASIK), Small Incision Lenticule Extraction (SMILE) and corneal inlay procedures-is in large part determined by the corneal wound healing response after surgery. The wound healing response varies depending on the type of surgery, the level of intended correction of refractive error, the post-operative inflammatory response, generation of opacity producing myofibroblasts and likely poorly understood genetic factors. This article details what is known about these specific wound healing responses that include apoptosis of keratocytes and myofibroblasts, mitosis of corneal fibroblasts and myofibroblast precursors, the development of myofibroblasts from keratocyte-derived corneal fibroblasts and bone marrow-derived fibrocytes, deposition of disordered extracellular matrix by corneal fibroblasts and myofibroblasts, healing of the epithelial injury, and regeneration of the epithelial basement membrane. Problems with epithelial and stromal cellular viability and function that are altered by corneal inlays are also discussed. A better understanding of the wound healing response in refractive surgical procedures is likely to lead to better treatments to improve outcomes, limit complications of keratorefractive surgical procedures, and improve the safety and efficiency of refractive surgical procedures.
Topics: Corneal Surgery, Laser; Humans; Keratomileusis, Laser In Situ; Keratoplasty, Penetrating; Lasers, Excimer; Myopia; Photorefractive Keratectomy; Refraction, Ocular
PubMed: 32653492
DOI: 10.1016/j.exer.2020.108136 -
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 -
BMC Oral Health Dec 2021How long do lithium disilicate restorations last before they fail? The aim of this study was to assess the success rate of four different types of restorations made from...
BACKGROUND/PURPOSE
How long do lithium disilicate restorations last before they fail? The aim of this study was to assess the success rate of four different types of restorations made from lithium disilicate.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
A total of 87,203 ceramic restorations, classified into four different types (inlay or onlay, veneers (Vs), single crowns (SCs), and fixed partial dentures (FPDs)), were used. All were made of lithium disilicate (IPS e.Max CAD) with Cerec Inlab CAD/CAM system (Sirona Dental Systems, Bensheim, Germany). They were reported by dentists and entered in the database of the private B&R Dental Center between March 2015 and June 2020 and assessed retrospectively up to a period of 5 years based on the following parameters: failure rate and cause of failures (ceramic fracture, debonding, marginal adaptation, color match, endodontic intervention, periodontal disease, and secondary caries). Failure distribution according to gender, arch, and teeth type was also evaluated. The time-dependent time-to-failure/complication and their differences were calculated in months according to the Kaplan Meier and log-rank tests. The Chi-squared test (p 0.05) was used to assess the variations in causes of failure rates between different restorations.
RESULTS
Kaplan Meier test showed overall cumulative survival probability of lithium disilicate restorations for up to years was 85.08%. Inlay/onlay and Vs ceramic restorations showed highest cumulative survival probability (99.4%, 98.6, respectively). FPDs had the least cumulative survival probability (52.9%) which was significantly (P < 0.00001) higher than for other ceramic restorations using the log-rank test. Moreover, overall time-dependent time-to-failure/complication occurred after 52.373 months according to Kaplan-Meier (CI: lower bound: 51.875 months; upper bound: 52.871 months). Ceramic fracture in both FPDs and SCs (27.6% and 26.6%, respectively) and debonding in Vs (12.7%) were significant as the main reasons for failure (P = 0.000). The failure rate was significantly higher for the maxillary arch than the mandibular arch (P = 0.021). Fracture and marginal discrepancy were more frequent in the molar region (77.5% and 14.75%, respectively) and significantly higher here than in the anterior and premolar regions (P = 0.000).
CONCLUSION
The medium-term performance of lithium disilicate is ideal. Ceramic fracture was the most common cause of failure in SCs and FPDs. FPDs presented with the highest failure rate based on evaluation for up to 5 years.
Topics: Ceramics; Computer-Aided Design; Crowns; Dental Porcelain; Dental Restoration Failure; Humans; Retrospective Studies
PubMed: 34876103
DOI: 10.1186/s12903-021-01987-1 -
Dental Materials : Official Publication... Aug 2022The loss of the dental coronal portion following carious lesions or fractures leads to endodontic treatment with subsequent restoration to ensure correct anatomy and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVE
The loss of the dental coronal portion following carious lesions or fractures leads to endodontic treatment with subsequent restoration to ensure correct anatomy and function. Recently, partial adhesive restorations have been widely proposed to increase the survival rate of endodontically treated teeth. The primary purpose of this review is to assess the failure rate of indirect partial adhesive restorations on endodontically treated teeth (ETT), considering the follow-up period.
METHODS
The indications reported in the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis) were used to draft the present review. The study was constructed on PICO questions: population (patients who need indirect adhesive restorative treatment on endodontically treated teeth with onlay and overlay), intervention (onlay and overlay), control (patients with onlay and overlay on endodontically treated teeth) and outcome (failure rate and types of failure for onlay and overlay). The asked scientific question was: what are the failure rate and types of failure for adhesive indirect partial restorations on ETT?
RESULTS
The overall failure rate that emerges is 0.087 with a ratio of 121/1254, I 80 % p-value< 0.001. Moreover, by meta-regression with covariates the follow-up period reports a coefficient of 0.013 with a P-value< 0.001. In conclusion, the indirect partial restorations on endodontically treated teeth displayed overall acceptable outcomes in terms of success from 2 to 4 years after their placement with only 4.32 % of failure. Failures increase after 7 years up to 12-30 years with failure rates of approximatively 10.65 % and 20.94 %. The analysis of the included articles reporting the causes of restorations failures showed that 15.51 % of cases were related to the loss of dental element.
SIGNIFICANCE
Besides the survival rates of indirect adhesive restorations on endodontically treated posterior teeth, it was highlighted that the majority of failures appeared restorable. Thus, partial restorations seemed able to prevent the ETT tooth loss.
Topics: Composite Resins; Dental Restoration Failure; Dental Restoration, Permanent; Humans; Inlays; Prognosis; Tooth, Nonvital
PubMed: 35835608
DOI: 10.1016/j.dental.2022.06.018 -
Clinical Oral Investigations Dec 2021The survival rate of indirect partial adhesive restorations on vital versus endodontically treated teeth is still controversial. The hypothesis is that there may be a... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVES
The survival rate of indirect partial adhesive restorations on vital versus endodontically treated teeth is still controversial. The hypothesis is that there may be a difference in the survival rate of partial adhesive restorations performed on non-vital teeth compared to vital teeth.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
This systematic review was conducted following the PRISMA guidelines. The considered clinical studies investigated the outcomes of adhesive inlays, onlays, and overlays conducted over the past 40 years, focusing on Kaplan-Meier survival curves to calculate the hazard ratio (primary objective) and the survival rate (secondary objective) between vital and non-vital teeth. The risk of bias was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Studies included in the review were identified through bibliographic research on electronic databases ("PubMed," "Scopus," "Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trial," and "Embase"). The K agreement between the two screening reviewers was evaluated.
RESULTS
A total of 55,793 records were identified on PubMed, Scopus, and other bibliographic sources, and after the application of the eligibility and inclusion criteria, eight articles were included for qualitative analysis and six for quantitative analysis. The meta-analysis of the primary and secondary outcomes demonstrated that hazard ratios (HR = 8.41, 95% CI: [4.50, 15.72]) and survival rates (OR = 3.24, 95% CI: [1.76, 5.82]) seemed more favorable for indirect partial adhesive restorations on vital teeth than for those on endodontically treated teeth.
CONCLUSIONS
Within the limits of this study, these findings suggest that the risk of failure of indirect partial adhesive restorations on endodontically treated teeth is higher than on vital teeth.
CLINICAL RELEVANCE
The use of partial adhesive restorations on vital and endodontically treated teeth showed different long-term clinical outcomes.
Topics: Composite Resins; Dental Restoration Failure; Dental Restoration, Permanent; Humans; Inlays; Kaplan-Meier Estimate; Mass Screening; Tooth, Nonvital
PubMed: 34628547
DOI: 10.1007/s00784-021-04187-x -
International Journal of Environmental... Oct 2020A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed to analyze the survival of onlay restorations in the posterior region, their clinical behavior according to the... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed to analyze the survival of onlay restorations in the posterior region, their clinical behavior according to the material used (ceramic reinforced with lithium disilicate, conventional feldspathic ceramic or reinforced with leucite; hybrid materials and composite), possible complications, and the factors influencing restoration success. The systematic review was based on the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) statement, without publication date or language restrictions. An electronic search was made in the PubMed, Scopus, Embase, and Cochrane databases. After discarding duplicate publications and studies that failed to meet the inclusion criteria, the articles were selected based on the population, intervention, comparison, outcome (PICO) question. The following variables were considered in the qualitative and quantitative analyses: restoration survival rate (determined by several clinical parameters), the influence of the material used upon the clinical behavior of the restorations, and the complications recorded over follow-up. A total of 29 articles were selected for the qualitative analysis and 27 for the quantitative analysis. The estimated restoration survival rate was 94.2%. The predictors of survival were the duration of follow-up (beta = -0.001; = 0.001) and the onlay material used (beta = -0.064; = 0.028). Composite onlays were associated with a lower survival rate over time. Onlays are a good, conservative, and predictable option for restoring dental defects in the posterior region, with a survival rate of over 90%. The survival rate decreases over time and with the use of composite as onlay material.
Topics: Ceramics; Composite Resins; Dental Restoration Failure; Humans; Inlays
PubMed: 33086485
DOI: 10.3390/ijerph17207582