What German dentists choose for their teeth: A Web-based survey of molar restorations and their longevity

Beyer, Celina; Schwahn, Christian; Meyer, Georg; Söhnel, Andreas

doi:10.1016/j.prosdent.2020.01.034

Cited by 7 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 26 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In 2020, a survey was conducted among German dentists to gather information about the type and durability of their permanent molar restorations. Of 1719 molars from 288 dentists, only 0.8% were restored with GIC [14], which is considered a low percentage of the population.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluating Glass Ionomer Cement Longevity in the Primary and Permanent Teeth—An Umbrella Review

Panetta,

Lopes,

Novaes

et al. 2024

JFB

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The aim of this umbrella review was to evaluate the longevity of glass ionomer cement (GIC) as a restorative material for primary and permanent teeth. Research in the literature was conducted in three databases (MedLine/PubMed, Web of Science, and Scopus). The inclusion criteria were: (1) to be a systematic review of clinical trials that (2) evaluated the clinical longevity of GICs as a restorative material in primary and/or permanent teeth; the exclusion criteria were: (1) not being a systematic review of clinical trials; (2) not evaluating longevity/clinical performance of GICs as a restorative material; and (3) studies of dental restorative materials in teeth with enamel alterations, root caries, and non-carious cervical lesions. Twenty-four eligible articles were identified, and 13 were included. The follow-up periods ranged from 6 months to 6 years. Different types of GICs were evaluated in the included studies: resin-modified glass ionomer cement (RMGIC), compomers, and low- and high-viscosity glass ionomer cement. Some studies compared amalgam and composite resins to GICs regarding longevity/clinical performance. Analyzing the AMSTAR-2 results, none of the articles had positive criteria in all the evaluated requisites, and none of the articles had an a priori design. The criteria considered for the analysis of the risk of bias of the included studies were evaluated through the ROBIS tool, and the results of this analysis showed that seven studies had a low risk of bias; three studies had positive results in all criteria except for one criterion of unclear risk; and two studies showed a high risk of bias. GRADE tool was used to determine the quality of evidence; for the degree of recommendations, all studies were classified as Class II, meaning there was still conflicting evidence on the clinical performance/longevity of GICs and their recommendations compared to other materials. The level of evidence was classified as Level B, meaning that the data were obtained from less robust meta-analyses and single randomized clinical trials. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first umbrella review approaching GIC in permanent teeth. GICs are a good choice in both dentitions, but primary dentition presents more evidence, especially regarding the atraumatic restorative treatment (ART) technique. Within the limitation of this study, it is still questionable if GIC is a good restorative material in the medium/long term for permanent and primary dentition. Many of the included studies presented a high risk of bias and low quality. The techniques, type of GIC, type of cavity, and operator experience highly influence clinical performance. Thus, clinical decision-making should be based on the dental practitioner’s ability, each case analysis, and the patient’s wishes. More evidence is needed to determine which is the best material for definitive restorations in permanent and primary dentition.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluating Glass Ionomer Cement Longevity in the Primary and Permanent Teeth—An Umbrella Review

Panetta,

Lopes,

Novaes

et al. 2024

JFB

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Over one hundred published studies exist, focusing on the clinical performance of dental composites, which has created a competitive landscape within the field [ 1 ]. Such techniques encompass direct, semi-direct, and indirect approaches, [ 2 ] but the extensive range of available restorative materials often leads to confusion and misinterpretation among dental clinicians [ 3 , 4 ].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Fracture Resistance of Class II MOD Cavities Restored by Direct and Indirect Techniques and Different Materials Combination

Tsertsidou,

Mourouzis,

Dionysopoulos

et al. 2023

Polymers

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study aimed to evaluate the fracture resistance of class II MOD cavities restored using different techniques and materials. Sixty extracted maxillary molars were selected and standardized class II MOD cavities were prepared using a custom-made paralleling device. The specimens were divided into four groups based on the restoration technique used: Group 1 (direct resin composite), Group 2 (short-fiber-reinforced composite resin), Group 3 (composite polyethylene fiber reinforcement), and Group 4 (CAD/CAM resin inlays). Fracture resistance was assessed for each group after thermocycling aging for 10,000 cycles. The mode of fracture was assigned to five types using Burke’s classification. To compare the fracture force among the tested materials, a paired sample t-test was performed. The significance level for each test was set at p < 0.05. Significant differences in fracture resistance were observed among the different restoration techniques. CAD/CAM inlays (2166 ± 615 N), short-fiber-reinforced composite resin (2471 ± 761 N), and composite polyethylene fiber reinforcement (1923 ± 492 N) showed superior fracture resistance compared to the group restored with direct resin composite (1242 ± 436 N). The conventional resin composite group exhibited the lowest mean fracture resistance. The choice of restoration material plays a critical role in the clinical survival of large MOD cavities. CAD/CAM inlays and fiber-reinforced composites offer improved fracture resistance, which is essential for long-term success in extensive restorations.

show abstract

“…As a traditional and reliable method restoring the posterior teeth, full crowns are used extensively in clinics worldwide when teeth are destroyed severely [ 11 – 13 ], especially when the loss of tooth structure exceeds 50% [ 14 ]. Actually, a number of studies have proved that full crowns have been achieved reliable results in restoring the defected teeth regardless of the restorative materials [ 15 – 19 ].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Onlays/partial crowns versus full crowns in restoring posterior teeth: a systematic review and meta-analysis

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Tooth-colored onlays and partial crowns for posterior teeth have been used increasingly in clinics. However, whether onlays/partial crowns could perform as well as full crowns in the posterior region was still not evaluated thoroughly. Methods A literature search was conducted without language restrictions in Pubmed, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trial and Web of science until September 2021. RCTs, prospective and retrospective observational studies with a mean follow-up of 1 year were selected. Cochrane Collaboration’s tool was adopted for quality assessment of the RCT. The quality of observational studies was evaluated following Newcastle-Ottawa scale. The random-effects and fixed-effects model were employed for meta-analysis. Results Four thousand two hundred fifty-seven articles were initially searched. Finally, one RCT was identified for quality assessment and five observational studies for qualitative synthesis and meta-analysis. The RCT was of unclear risk of bias while five observational studies were evaluated as low risk. The meta-analysis indicated no statistically significant difference in the survival between onlays/partial crowns and full crowns after 1 year (OR = 0.55, 95% CI: 0.02-18.08; I2 = 57.0%; P = 0.127) and 3 years (OR = 0.65, 95% CI: 0.20-2.17; I2 = 0.0%; P = 0.747). For the success, onlays/partial crowns performed as well as crowns (OR = 0.58, 95% CI: 0.20-1.72; I2 = 0.0%; P = 0.881) at 3 years. No significant difference of crown fracture existed between the two methods (RD = 0.00, 95% CI: − 0.03-0.03; I2 = 0.0%; P = 0.972). Conclusions Tooth-colored onlays/partial crowns performed as excellently as full crowns in posterior region in a short-term period. The conclusions should be further consolidated by RCTs with long-term follow-up.

show abstract

What German dentists choose for their teeth: A Web-based survey of molar restorations and their longevity

Cited by 7 publications

References 26 publications

Evaluating Glass Ionomer Cement Longevity in the Primary and Permanent Teeth—An Umbrella Review

Evaluating Glass Ionomer Cement Longevity in the Primary and Permanent Teeth—An Umbrella Review

Fracture Resistance of Class II MOD Cavities Restored by Direct and Indirect Techniques and Different Materials Combination

Onlays/partial crowns versus full crowns in restoring posterior teeth: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About