Dental restorations for oral rehabilitation – testing of laboratory properties versus clinical performance for clinical decision making *

Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/73116/1/j.1365-2842.2007.01812.x.pd

Fabrication, workflow and delivery of reconstruction: Summary and consensus statements of group 4. The 6th EAO Consensus Conference 2021.

Objectives: To report assessments of four systematic reviews (SRs) on (i) clinical outcomes of all-ceramic implant-supported crowns (iSCs), (ii) production time, effectiveness, and costs of computer-assisted manufacturing (CAM), (iii) computer-assisted implant planning and surgery (CAIPS) time and costs, and (iv) patient-reported outcome measures (PROMS). Material and methods: An author group consisting of experienced clinicians and content experts discussed and evaluated the SRs and formulated consensus on the main findings, statements, clinical recommendations, and need for future research. Results: All four SRs were conducted and reported according to PRISMA and detailed comprehensive search strategies in at least three bibliometric databases and hand searching. The search strategies were deemed reproducible. Variation was noted regarding language restrictions and inclusion of grey literature, but the search comprehensiveness appeared persuasive. The SRs included bias risk assessments of the primary studies, and their study methodology impacted the interpretations of the extracted data. Conclusions: (i) There is limited evidence (49 NRCT) showing that veneered and monolithic all-ceramic iSCs have excellent outcomes observed up to 3 years. (ii) There is no evidence evaluating production time and effectiveness comparing subtractive and additive CAM of implant models, abutments and crowns. (iii) There is limited evidence (4 RCT) that CAIPS involves more time and costs when considering the entire workflow and for diagnostics, manufacturing, and insertion of the restoration. Time seems to be the decisive factor for higher costs. (iv) Patients' comfort increases when optical compared to conventional impressions are used for fabricating iSCs and short-span FPDs (2 RCT, 5 NRCT)

The NTI-tss device for the therapy of bruxism, temporomandibular disorders, and headache – Where do we stand? A qualitative systematic review of the literature

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>The NTI-tss device is an anterior bite stop, which, according to the manufacturer, is indicated for the prevention and treatment of bruxism, temporomandibular disorders (TMDs), tension-type headaches, and migraine. The aim of this systematic review was to appraise the currently available evidence regarding the efficacy and safety of the NTI-tss splint.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We performed a systematic search in nine electronic databases and in NTI-tss-associated websites (last update: December 31, 2007). The reference lists of all relevant articles were perused. Five levels of scientific quality were distinguished. Reporting quality of articles about randomized controlled trials (RCTs) was evaluated using the Jadad score. To identify adverse events, we searched in the identified publications and in the MAUDE database.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Nine of 68 relevant publications reported about the results of five different RCTs. Two RCTs concentrated on electromyographic (EMG) investigations in patients with TMDs and concomitant bruxism (Baad-Hansen et al 2007, Jadad score: 4) or with bruxism alone (Kavaklı 2006, Jadad score: 2); in both studies, compared to an occlusal stabilization splint the NTI-tss device showed significant reduction of EMG activity. Two RCTs focused exclusively on TMD patients; in one trial (Magnusson et al 2004, Jadad score: 3), a stabilization appliance led to greater improvement than an NTI-tss device, while in the other study (Jokstad et al 2005, Jadad score: 5) no difference was found. In one RCT (Shankland 2002, Jadad score: 1), patients with tension-type headache or migraine responded more favorably to the NTI-tss splint than to a bleaching tray. NTI-tss-induced complications related predominantly to single teeth or to the occlusion.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Evidence from RCTs suggests that the NTI-tss device may be successfully used for the management of bruxism and TMDs. However, to avoid potential unwanted effects, it should be chosen only if certain a patient will be compliant with follow-up appointments. The NTI-tss bite splint may be justified when a reduction of jaw closer muscle activity (e.g., jaw clenching or tooth grinding) is desired, or as an emergency device in patients with acute temporomandibular pain and, possibly, restricted jaw opening.</p

Ten years&apos; clinical evaluation of three luting cements

ABSTRACT Objective: The aim of the present clinical longitudinal study was to observe, over 10 years, the prognosis of abutment teeth restored with fixed prostheses retained by two glass ionomer luting cements and one conventional zinc phosphate cement. Methods: Three dentists prepared 135 abutment teeth in 61 patients to retain 81 fixed prostheses. The prostheses were retained by two glass ionomer luting cements (Ketac-Cem, ~uji Ionomer), ~r a conventional zinc phosphate cement (De Trey Zinc Zement Improved). The patients were exammed yearly for 10 years. . . . Results: Post-operative hypersensitivity occurred in five teeth restored With glass lOnomer lutmg cement. The prevailing reason for abutment tooth failure was secondary caries (n = 21) and pulp ne~rosis (n = 5). Non-parametric survival estimates indicated that 80-85% of the abutment teeth remamed mtact after 5 years and 71-81 % after 10 years. . Conclusions: The 10-year results indicate that the prognosis of abutment teeth restored With fixed prostheses is good, regardless of whether a glass ionomer or a zinc phosphate luting cement is used