Author:
Dioguardi Mario,Alovisi Mario,Troiano Giuseppe,Caponio Carlo Vito Alberto,Baldi Andrea,Rocca Giovanni Tommaso,Comba Allegra,Lo Muzio Lorenzo,Scotti Nicola
Abstract
Abstract
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.
Funder
Università degli Studi di Torino
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Reference73 articles.
1. Sorrentino R, Di Mauro MI, Ferrari M, Leone R, Zarone F (2016) Complications of endodontically treated teeth restored with fiber posts and single crowns or fixed dental prostheses-a systematic review. Clin Oral Invest 20:1449–1457
2. Demarco Dent Mater (2012) Manhart J, Chen H, Hamm G, Hickel R. (2004) Buonocore Memorial Lecture. Review of the clinical survival of direct and indirect restorations in posterior teeth of the permanent dentition. Oper Dent 29:481–508
3. Glazer B (2000) Restoration of endodontically treated teeth with carbon fiber posts - a prospective study. J Can Dent Assoc 66:613–618
4. Olivieri JG, Elmsmari F, Miro Q, Ruiz XF, Krell KV, Garcia-Font M, Duran-Sindreu F (2020) Outcome and survival of endodontically treated cracked posterior permanent teeth: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Endod 46:455–463
5. da Rosa Rodolpho PA, Cenci MS, Donassollo TA, Loguércio AD, Demarco FF (2006) A clinical evaluation of posterior composite restorations: 17-year findings. J Dent 34(7):427–435
Cited by
19 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献