- Email: [email protected]
Incisal coverage survival
Results.—No meta-analysis was done for the resin group because none of the studies could be selected for data collection. Of the ceramics group, 6 studies used feldspathic porcelain and 5 used glass-ceramics, with 3 using both materials. Meta-regression analysis showed no relationship between type of ceramic and survival rates at either 5 or 10 years. Feldspathic porcelain and glass-ceramic materials had survival rates between 92% and 95% at 5 years, with 91% at 10 years. Factors considered as possibly affecting survival included type of ceramic material, follow-up time, study design, and study setting. None of these showed any relationship with survival rate. Most failures resulted from fractures/chipping (4%), endodontic complications (3%), secondary caries (1%), and debonding (1%). Vital teeth had a better survival than endodontically treated teeth. Discussion.—The survival data indicate a high rate of survival and did not differ significantly with respect to type of restoration material used. All types of restorations failed most often as a result of fractures or chipping. The rates of survival were not as robust for endodontically
treated teeth. More research into techniques, cavity preparations, and materials is needed.
Clinical Significance.—The survival of toothcolored, partial-coverage restorations for up to 10 years is high regardless of the material used. It’s possible that the improved adhesive cements used today contributed to the longevity. This factor should be considered along with the others mentioned in future analyses.
Morimoto S, Rebello de Sampaio FBW, Braga MM, et al: Survival rate of resin and ceramic inlays, onlays, and overlays: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Dent Res 95:985-994, 2016 € Reprints available from M Ozcan, Ctr for Dental and Oral Medicine, Dental Materials Unit, Clinic for Fixed and Removable Prosthodontics and Dental Materials Science, Univ of Zurich, Plattenstrasse 11, CH-8032 Zurich, Switzerland; e-mail: [email protected]
Incisal coverage survival Background.—The preparation and design specifications are known to influence the duration of service of ceramic laminate veneers. The various designs differ markedly with respect to the amount of dental structure removed, ranging from 3% to 30%. Three types of preparation design are generally used for ceramic veneers. These are the feathered incisal edge, a butt joint or incisal bevel, and the palatal chamber. Previously, the survival rates of preparation designs for ceramic veneers were only evaluated using laboratory studies. A systematic review and meta-analysis was undertaken to explore the survival rates of the different incisal preparation designs using both clinical and nonclinical studies. Methods.—A search of the MEDLINE (PubMed) and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (Central) databases between 1977 and June 5, 2016 was conducted by two reviewers. Eight studies out of the 1145 articles initially identified were included in this analysis. Results.—Seven of the studies had a relatively low risk of bias; one had a high risk of bias. The studies identified were published between 1987 and 2016.
Seven articles dealt with incisal coverage and two focused on no incisal coverage. For the incisal coverage group, the cumulative survival rate was 88%. That for the group without incisal coverage was 91%. The difference was not statistically significant. Incisal coverage presented an odds ratio (OR) of 1.25, but this was not statistically significant. It represented 36 failures out of 506 veneers with incisal coverage versus 38 failures out of 507 veneers that had no incisal coverage. Discussion.—Regardless of preparation design and presence or absence of incisal coverage, ceramic veneers were associated with high survival rates.
Clinical Significance.—The preparation alone appears to have little effect on the survival rates of ceramic veneers, with high survival found in most cases. Some conditions may interfere with the survival of these restorations, so they should be carefully considered. If there are no statistically significant
Volume 62
Issue 3
2017
137
differences in preparation data, it is best not to overlap the incisal edge. Future studies should use more standardized preparation designs to determine the implications of incisal coverage.
Albanesi RB, Pignozzo MN, Sesma N, et al: Incisal coverage or not in ceramic laminate veneers: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Dent 52:1-7, 2016 Reprints available from S Morimoto, School of Dentistry, Ibirapuera Univ, S~ao Paulo, Brazil, Interlagos Ave, 1329 S~ao Paulo, Brazil; e-mail: [email protected]
Endocrowns Background.—Endodontically treated teeth that have lost a great deal of coronal structure present a clinical challenge for reconstruction. One option that has been suggested is endocrown restoration. Endocrowns are monoblock restorations that assemble the intraradicular post, core, and crown into one component. They are anchored to the internal part of the pulp chamber and on cavity margins, obtaining both macro- and micromechanical retention. They require the removal of lesser amounts of sound tissue compared to conventional techniques and shorten chair time. Their structure and retention mean that the masticatory stresses applied to the tooth/restoration interface are better dissipated along the entire restored tooth structure. Either ceramic or resin composites can be used to fabricate endocrowns, with ceramics more rigid than dental structure and resin composites more biomechanically similar to natural tooth. Little research has addressed the use of endocrowns versus conventional treatments using intraradicular posts and the literature that is available reports on short follow-up times. A systematic review of the literature was done to assess the clinical and in vitro studies that address this comparison.
included in the assessment. Failure due to secondary caries occurred in two cases. The analysis of endocrowns’ fracture strength in posterior and anterior teeth demonstrated significant differences from conventional methods involving intraradicular posts, direct composite resin, and inlay/onlay restorations. Endocrowns performed considerably better than conventional approaches. In posterior teeth, the endocrowns and conventional treatments had similar fracture strength. The fracture strength of endocrowns compared to intraradicular posts did not differ significantly. Discussion.—The performance of endocrowns in both posterior and anterior teeth appears to be similar to or better than that of conventional treatments. However, the results of in vitro studies must be viewed with caution when applying them to clinical situations, and this assessment included a majority of in vitro findings.
Clinical Significance.—Further studies are needed to confirm these findings, but it appears that endocrowns may be a viable alternative for patients who have severely compromised endodontically treated teeth that require restorations.
Methods.—The search covered seven databases: PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, BBO, SciELO, LILACS, and IBECS. Eight studies were identified, 3 of which were clinical trials and 5 in vitro studies. The number of teeth included ranged from 20 to 48, with a total of 102. Although just 1 study investigated resin composite endocrowns, all of them studied ceramic endocrowns. Variables that were quantified included fracture strength, failure modes, marginal continuity, Weibull analysis, and finite element method. The 5 in vitro studies were also subjected to a meta-analysis in addition to the review.
Sedrez-Prto JA, de Oliveira da Rosa WL, da Silva AF, et al: Endocrown restorations: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Dent 52:8-14, 2016
Results.—The success rates for endocrowns varied from 94% to 100%. The follow-up periods ranged from 6 months to 36 months. Fifty-five posterior teeth were
Reprints available from T Pereira-Cenci, Graduate Program in Dentistry, Federal Univ of Pelotas, R Gonc¸alves Chaves, 457 Rm 508, Pelotas, 96015-560 RS, Brazil; e-mail: [email protected]
138
Dental Abstracts
treated teeth. More research into techniques, cavity preparations, and materials is needed.
Clinical Significance.—The survival of toothcolored, partial-coverage restorations for up to 10 years is high regardless of the material used. It’s possible that the improved adhesive cements used today contributed to the longevity. This factor should be considered along with the others mentioned in future analyses.
Morimoto S, Rebello de Sampaio FBW, Braga MM, et al: Survival rate of resin and ceramic inlays, onlays, and overlays: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Dent Res 95:985-994, 2016 € Reprints available from M Ozcan, Ctr for Dental and Oral Medicine, Dental Materials Unit, Clinic for Fixed and Removable Prosthodontics and Dental Materials Science, Univ of Zurich, Plattenstrasse 11, CH-8032 Zurich, Switzerland; e-mail: [email protected]
Incisal coverage survival Background.—The preparation and design specifications are known to influence the duration of service of ceramic laminate veneers. The various designs differ markedly with respect to the amount of dental structure removed, ranging from 3% to 30%. Three types of preparation design are generally used for ceramic veneers. These are the feathered incisal edge, a butt joint or incisal bevel, and the palatal chamber. Previously, the survival rates of preparation designs for ceramic veneers were only evaluated using laboratory studies. A systematic review and meta-analysis was undertaken to explore the survival rates of the different incisal preparation designs using both clinical and nonclinical studies. Methods.—A search of the MEDLINE (PubMed) and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (Central) databases between 1977 and June 5, 2016 was conducted by two reviewers. Eight studies out of the 1145 articles initially identified were included in this analysis. Results.—Seven of the studies had a relatively low risk of bias; one had a high risk of bias. The studies identified were published between 1987 and 2016.
Seven articles dealt with incisal coverage and two focused on no incisal coverage. For the incisal coverage group, the cumulative survival rate was 88%. That for the group without incisal coverage was 91%. The difference was not statistically significant. Incisal coverage presented an odds ratio (OR) of 1.25, but this was not statistically significant. It represented 36 failures out of 506 veneers with incisal coverage versus 38 failures out of 507 veneers that had no incisal coverage. Discussion.—Regardless of preparation design and presence or absence of incisal coverage, ceramic veneers were associated with high survival rates.
Clinical Significance.—The preparation alone appears to have little effect on the survival rates of ceramic veneers, with high survival found in most cases. Some conditions may interfere with the survival of these restorations, so they should be carefully considered. If there are no statistically significant
Volume 62
Issue 3
2017
137
differences in preparation data, it is best not to overlap the incisal edge. Future studies should use more standardized preparation designs to determine the implications of incisal coverage.
Albanesi RB, Pignozzo MN, Sesma N, et al: Incisal coverage or not in ceramic laminate veneers: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Dent 52:1-7, 2016 Reprints available from S Morimoto, School of Dentistry, Ibirapuera Univ, S~ao Paulo, Brazil, Interlagos Ave, 1329 S~ao Paulo, Brazil; e-mail: [email protected]
Endocrowns Background.—Endodontically treated teeth that have lost a great deal of coronal structure present a clinical challenge for reconstruction. One option that has been suggested is endocrown restoration. Endocrowns are monoblock restorations that assemble the intraradicular post, core, and crown into one component. They are anchored to the internal part of the pulp chamber and on cavity margins, obtaining both macro- and micromechanical retention. They require the removal of lesser amounts of sound tissue compared to conventional techniques and shorten chair time. Their structure and retention mean that the masticatory stresses applied to the tooth/restoration interface are better dissipated along the entire restored tooth structure. Either ceramic or resin composites can be used to fabricate endocrowns, with ceramics more rigid than dental structure and resin composites more biomechanically similar to natural tooth. Little research has addressed the use of endocrowns versus conventional treatments using intraradicular posts and the literature that is available reports on short follow-up times. A systematic review of the literature was done to assess the clinical and in vitro studies that address this comparison.
included in the assessment. Failure due to secondary caries occurred in two cases. The analysis of endocrowns’ fracture strength in posterior and anterior teeth demonstrated significant differences from conventional methods involving intraradicular posts, direct composite resin, and inlay/onlay restorations. Endocrowns performed considerably better than conventional approaches. In posterior teeth, the endocrowns and conventional treatments had similar fracture strength. The fracture strength of endocrowns compared to intraradicular posts did not differ significantly. Discussion.—The performance of endocrowns in both posterior and anterior teeth appears to be similar to or better than that of conventional treatments. However, the results of in vitro studies must be viewed with caution when applying them to clinical situations, and this assessment included a majority of in vitro findings.
Clinical Significance.—Further studies are needed to confirm these findings, but it appears that endocrowns may be a viable alternative for patients who have severely compromised endodontically treated teeth that require restorations.
Methods.—The search covered seven databases: PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, BBO, SciELO, LILACS, and IBECS. Eight studies were identified, 3 of which were clinical trials and 5 in vitro studies. The number of teeth included ranged from 20 to 48, with a total of 102. Although just 1 study investigated resin composite endocrowns, all of them studied ceramic endocrowns. Variables that were quantified included fracture strength, failure modes, marginal continuity, Weibull analysis, and finite element method. The 5 in vitro studies were also subjected to a meta-analysis in addition to the review.
Sedrez-Prto JA, de Oliveira da Rosa WL, da Silva AF, et al: Endocrown restorations: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Dent 52:8-14, 2016
Results.—The success rates for endocrowns varied from 94% to 100%. The follow-up periods ranged from 6 months to 36 months. Fifty-five posterior teeth were
Reprints available from T Pereira-Cenci, Graduate Program in Dentistry, Federal Univ of Pelotas, R Gonc¸alves Chaves, 457 Rm 508, Pelotas, 96015-560 RS, Brazil; e-mail: [email protected]
138
Dental Abstracts