Mauro Elias Mesko1, Rafael Sarkis-Onofre1, Maximiliano Sérgio Cenci1, Niek Johannes Opdam2, Bas Loomans2, Tatiana Pereira-Cenci3. 1. Graduate Program in Dentistry, Federal University of Pelotas, Pelotas, Brazil. 2. Radboud University Medical Center, Radboud Institute for Molecular Life Sciences, Department of Dentistry, Nijmegen, The Netherlands. 3. Graduate Program in Dentistry, Federal University of Pelotas, Pelotas, Brazil. Electronic address: Tatiana.cenci@ufpel.tche.br.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate the treatment performance/longevity of dental materials/techniques indicated to restore teeth with severe wear. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A systematic literature search was conducted to select retrospective studies (cohort and case series) and prospective studies that evaluated or compared techniques/materials to restore teeth with severe wear. A search was conducted in Medline (via Pubmed - June 2015) with no limits for publication year or language to identify clinical studies. Two reviewers independently selected studies, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of randomized controlled trials included. The annual failure rate (AFR%) of restorations was calculated for each study. RESULTS: A total of 511 articles were found and 23 studies were eligible for full-text analysis; hand search included 7 more papers. From the 30 studies, 12 were eligible for the review. Most of these studies presented good performance of the restorations in teeth with severe wear. AFR ranged from 0.4% (microhybrid) to 26.3% (microfilled) for direct resin composite, 0% to 14.9% for indirect resin composite and 2.7% for porcelain veneers. CONCLUSION: There is no strong evidence to suggest that any material is better than another. Direct or indirect materials may be feasible options to restore severely worn teeth.
OBJECTIVES: The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate the treatment performance/longevity of dental materials/techniques indicated to restore teeth with severe wear. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A systematic literature search was conducted to select retrospective studies (cohort and case series) and prospective studies that evaluated or compared techniques/materials to restore teeth with severe wear. A search was conducted in Medline (via Pubmed - June 2015) with no limits for publication year or language to identify clinical studies. Two reviewers independently selected studies, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of randomized controlled trials included. The annual failure rate (AFR%) of restorations was calculated for each study. RESULTS: A total of 511 articles were found and 23 studies were eligible for full-text analysis; hand search included 7 more papers. From the 30 studies, 12 were eligible for the review. Most of these studies presented good performance of the restorations in teeth with severe wear. AFR ranged from 0.4% (microhybrid) to 26.3% (microfilled) for direct resin composite, 0% to 14.9% for indirect resin composite and 2.7% for porcelain veneers. CONCLUSION: There is no strong evidence to suggest that any material is better than another. Direct or indirect materials may be feasible options to restore severely worn teeth.
Authors: Louis Hardan; Davide Mancino; Rim Bourgi; Carlos Enrique Cuevas-Suárez; Monika Lukomska-Szymanska; Maciej Zarow; Natalia Jakubowicz; Juan Eliezer Zamarripa-Calderón; Laura Kafa; Olivier Etienne; François Reitzer; Naji Kharouf; Youssef Haïkel Journal: Bioengineering (Basel) Date: 2022-07-27
Authors: Bernadette A M M Sterenborg; Ewald M Bronkhorst; Peter Wetselaar; Frank Lobbezoo; Bas A C Loomans; Marie-Charlotte D N J M Huysmans Journal: Clin Oral Investig Date: 2018-02-03 Impact factor: 3.573