No consensus has been reached regarding the best occlusal scheme for making complete dentures. Thus, the purpose of this systematic review was to compare bilateral balanced occlusion (BBO) with other occlusal schemes (canine guidance, lingualised occlusion and zero degree) in complete dentures. The schemes were compared in terms of quality of life/satisfaction and masticatory performance. Two independent reviewers performed a comprehensive search of studies published in or before October 2017 using the PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus and Cochrane Library databases. The search was performed in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement. The focused question was: "In conventional complete denture, is BBO better than lingualised occlusion, canine guidance and zero degree in terms of quality of life, patient satisfaction and masticatory performance/muscle activity?" Seventeen studies were selected for analysis. In total, there were 492 patients with a mean age of 64.78 years and a mean follow-up duration of 2.96 months (range: 1-6 months). All studies compared BBO with the other occlusal schemes. Eleven studies evaluated the influence of the occlusal scheme designs on quality of life and satisfaction, and 8 studies evaluated masticatory performance and muscle activity between BBO and the other occlusion schemes. The present systematic review indicated that BBO does not confer better quality of life/satisfaction or masticatory performance and muscle activity. Thus, lingualised occlusion can be considered a predictable occlusal scheme for complete dentures in terms of quality of life/satisfaction and masticatory performance, while canine guidance can be used to reduce muscular activity.
Within the limitations of this systematic review and meta-analysis, it was concluded that there was no difference in the marginal bone loss and prosthetic complications of splinted and nonsplinted implant restorations; this is especially true for restorations in the posterior region. However, splinted restorations were associated with decreased implant failure.
SUMMARY
Objective:
The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate a high concentration of hydrogen peroxide (35%) regarding tooth sensitivity and color change in tooth bleaching in comparison to low concentrations (6% to 20%).
Methods and Materials:
This review was conducted using the criteria of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses and is registered on the Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (CRD42017064493). The PICO question was “Does a concentration of hydrogen peroxide ≥35% using in-office bleaching procedure contribute to greater tooth sensitivity?” A search was made in PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, and the Cochrane Library.
Results:
Fourteen studies were selected for the qualitative analysis and seven for quantitative analysis. A total of 649 patients were evaluated (mean age: 36.32 years; range: 13.9 to 31 years), and the follow-up period ranged from one week to 12 months. The meta-analysis demonstrated that tooth sensitivity was higher in the patients submitted to treatment involving a high concentration of hydrogen peroxide (0.67; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.44 to 1.03; p=0.04; I2: 56%), and a significant difference was found regarding objective color ΔE (1.53; 95% CI: 2.99 to 0.08; p<0.0001; I2: 82%) but no significant difference was found regarding subjective color ΔSGU (0.24; CI: 0.75 to 1.23; p<0.00001; I2: 89%).
Conclusions:
This study indicated that a lower concentration of hydrogen peroxide causes less tooth sensitivity and better effectiveness in objective color change (ΔE); however, there is no difference between them related to subjective color (ΔSGU).
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.