Susanne Strauch1, Sebastian Hahnel1. 1. Department of Prosthetic Dentistry, Regensburg University Medical Center, Regensburg, Germany.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To summarize the contemporary scientific evidence available regarding restorative dental treatment in patients with Amelogenesis imperfecta (AI). METHODS: An electronic literature search was conducted using the search term "Amelogenesis imperfecta" and the PubMed/MEDLINE database as well as Google Scholar. Prospective and retrospective clinical studies that investigated the outcome of direct and/or indirect dental restorative treatment in patients with AI, were published in English, and had an observation time of at least 1 year were included in this review. The articles identified were screened and analyzed by two reviewers according to inclusion and exclusion criteria in three review rounds. RESULTS: Six prospective or retrospective clinical studies analyzing longevity and complications associated with dental restorative treatment in patients with AI met the inclusion criteria. Extracted data suggest that in patients with AI, indirect restorations feature superior predictability and longevity than direct restorations. CONCLUSIONS: As endodontic complications were infrequently observed and periodontal parameters regularly improve with the insertion of indirect restorations, dental treatment in patients with AI should focus on indirect restorations as soon as possible. While adhesive bonding techniques to enamel surfaces in patients with AI feature merely limited predictability and longevity and as the available data is scarce, further laboratory and clinical studies should be performed to investigate the performance of minimally invasive indirect restorations bonded to enamel in patients with AI. RECOMMENDATION: Scientific evidence indicates that indirect restorations should be preferred over direct restorations in patients with AI.
PURPOSE: To summarize the contemporary scientific evidence available regarding restorative dental treatment in patients with Amelogenesis imperfecta (AI). METHODS: An electronic literature search was conducted using the search term "Amelogenesis imperfecta" and the PubMed/MEDLINE database as well as Google Scholar. Prospective and retrospective clinical studies that investigated the outcome of direct and/or indirect dental restorative treatment in patients with AI, were published in English, and had an observation time of at least 1 year were included in this review. The articles identified were screened and analyzed by two reviewers according to inclusion and exclusion criteria in three review rounds. RESULTS: Six prospective or retrospective clinical studies analyzing longevity and complications associated with dental restorative treatment in patients with AI met the inclusion criteria. Extracted data suggest that in patients with AI, indirect restorations feature superior predictability and longevity than direct restorations. CONCLUSIONS: As endodontic complications were infrequently observed and periodontal parameters regularly improve with the insertion of indirect restorations, dental treatment in patients with AI should focus on indirect restorations as soon as possible. While adhesive bonding techniques to enamel surfaces in patients with AI feature merely limited predictability and longevity and as the available data is scarce, further laboratory and clinical studies should be performed to investigate the performance of minimally invasive indirect restorations bonded to enamel in patients with AI. RECOMMENDATION: Scientific evidence indicates that indirect restorations should be preferred over direct restorations in patients with AI.