Cargando…

Clinical outcome of bonded partial indirect posterior restorations on vital and non-vital teeth: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES: The survival rate of indirect partial adhesive restorations on vital versus endodontically treated teeth is still controversial. The hypothesis is that there may be a difference in the survival rate of partial adhesive restorations performed on non-vital teeth compared to vital teeth. MA...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Dioguardi, Mario, Alovisi, Mario, Troiano, Giuseppe, Caponio, Carlo Vito Alberto, Baldi, Andrea, Rocca, Giovanni Tommaso, Comba, Allegra, Lo Muzio, Lorenzo, Scotti, Nicola
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8602142/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34628547
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00784-021-04187-x
_version_ 1784601515851251712
author Dioguardi, Mario
Alovisi, Mario
Troiano, Giuseppe
Caponio, Carlo Vito Alberto
Baldi, Andrea
Rocca, Giovanni Tommaso
Comba, Allegra
Lo Muzio, Lorenzo
Scotti, Nicola
author_facet Dioguardi, Mario
Alovisi, Mario
Troiano, Giuseppe
Caponio, Carlo Vito Alberto
Baldi, Andrea
Rocca, Giovanni Tommaso
Comba, Allegra
Lo Muzio, Lorenzo
Scotti, Nicola
author_sort Dioguardi, Mario
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVES: The survival rate of indirect partial adhesive restorations on vital versus endodontically treated teeth is still controversial. The hypothesis is that there may be a difference in the survival rate of partial adhesive restorations performed on non-vital teeth compared to vital teeth. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This systematic review was conducted following the PRISMA guidelines. The considered clinical studies investigated the outcomes of adhesive inlays, onlays, and overlays conducted over the past 40 years, focusing on Kaplan–Meier survival curves to calculate the hazard ratio (primary objective) and the survival rate (secondary objective) between vital and non-vital teeth. The risk of bias was assessed using the Newcastle–Ottawa Scale. Studies included in the review were identified through bibliographic research on electronic databases (“PubMed,” “Scopus,” “Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trial,” and “Embase”). The K agreement between the two screening reviewers was evaluated. RESULTS: A total of 55,793 records were identified on PubMed, Scopus, and other bibliographic sources, and after the application of the eligibility and inclusion criteria, eight articles were included for qualitative analysis and six for quantitative analysis. The meta-analysis of the primary and secondary outcomes demonstrated that hazard ratios (HR = 8.41, 95% CI: [4.50, 15.72]) and survival rates (OR = 3.24, 95% CI: [1.76, 5.82]) seemed more favorable for indirect partial adhesive restorations on vital teeth than for those on endodontically treated teeth. CONCLUSIONS: Within the limits of this study, these findings suggest that the risk of failure of indirect partial adhesive restorations on endodontically treated teeth is higher than on vital teeth. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The use of partial adhesive restorations on vital and endodontically treated teeth showed different long-term clinical outcomes.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8602142
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher Springer Berlin Heidelberg
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-86021422021-12-03 Clinical outcome of bonded partial indirect posterior restorations on vital and non-vital teeth: a systematic review and meta-analysis Dioguardi, Mario Alovisi, Mario Troiano, Giuseppe Caponio, Carlo Vito Alberto Baldi, Andrea Rocca, Giovanni Tommaso Comba, Allegra Lo Muzio, Lorenzo Scotti, Nicola Clin Oral Investig Review OBJECTIVES: The survival rate of indirect partial adhesive restorations on vital versus endodontically treated teeth is still controversial. The hypothesis is that there may be a difference in the survival rate of partial adhesive restorations performed on non-vital teeth compared to vital teeth. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This systematic review was conducted following the PRISMA guidelines. The considered clinical studies investigated the outcomes of adhesive inlays, onlays, and overlays conducted over the past 40 years, focusing on Kaplan–Meier survival curves to calculate the hazard ratio (primary objective) and the survival rate (secondary objective) between vital and non-vital teeth. The risk of bias was assessed using the Newcastle–Ottawa Scale. Studies included in the review were identified through bibliographic research on electronic databases (“PubMed,” “Scopus,” “Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trial,” and “Embase”). The K agreement between the two screening reviewers was evaluated. RESULTS: A total of 55,793 records were identified on PubMed, Scopus, and other bibliographic sources, and after the application of the eligibility and inclusion criteria, eight articles were included for qualitative analysis and six for quantitative analysis. The meta-analysis of the primary and secondary outcomes demonstrated that hazard ratios (HR = 8.41, 95% CI: [4.50, 15.72]) and survival rates (OR = 3.24, 95% CI: [1.76, 5.82]) seemed more favorable for indirect partial adhesive restorations on vital teeth than for those on endodontically treated teeth. CONCLUSIONS: Within the limits of this study, these findings suggest that the risk of failure of indirect partial adhesive restorations on endodontically treated teeth is higher than on vital teeth. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The use of partial adhesive restorations on vital and endodontically treated teeth showed different long-term clinical outcomes. Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2021-10-10 2021 /pmc/articles/PMC8602142/ /pubmed/34628547 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00784-021-04187-x Text en © The Author(s) 2021 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) .
spellingShingle Review
Dioguardi, Mario
Alovisi, Mario
Troiano, Giuseppe
Caponio, Carlo Vito Alberto
Baldi, Andrea
Rocca, Giovanni Tommaso
Comba, Allegra
Lo Muzio, Lorenzo
Scotti, Nicola
Clinical outcome of bonded partial indirect posterior restorations on vital and non-vital teeth: a systematic review and meta-analysis
title Clinical outcome of bonded partial indirect posterior restorations on vital and non-vital teeth: a systematic review and meta-analysis
title_full Clinical outcome of bonded partial indirect posterior restorations on vital and non-vital teeth: a systematic review and meta-analysis
title_fullStr Clinical outcome of bonded partial indirect posterior restorations on vital and non-vital teeth: a systematic review and meta-analysis
title_full_unstemmed Clinical outcome of bonded partial indirect posterior restorations on vital and non-vital teeth: a systematic review and meta-analysis
title_short Clinical outcome of bonded partial indirect posterior restorations on vital and non-vital teeth: a systematic review and meta-analysis
title_sort clinical outcome of bonded partial indirect posterior restorations on vital and non-vital teeth: a systematic review and meta-analysis
topic Review
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8602142/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34628547
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00784-021-04187-x
work_keys_str_mv AT dioguardimario clinicaloutcomeofbondedpartialindirectposteriorrestorationsonvitalandnonvitalteethasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT alovisimario clinicaloutcomeofbondedpartialindirectposteriorrestorationsonvitalandnonvitalteethasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT troianogiuseppe clinicaloutcomeofbondedpartialindirectposteriorrestorationsonvitalandnonvitalteethasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT caponiocarlovitoalberto clinicaloutcomeofbondedpartialindirectposteriorrestorationsonvitalandnonvitalteethasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT baldiandrea clinicaloutcomeofbondedpartialindirectposteriorrestorationsonvitalandnonvitalteethasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT roccagiovannitommaso clinicaloutcomeofbondedpartialindirectposteriorrestorationsonvitalandnonvitalteethasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT combaallegra clinicaloutcomeofbondedpartialindirectposteriorrestorationsonvitalandnonvitalteethasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT lomuziolorenzo clinicaloutcomeofbondedpartialindirectposteriorrestorationsonvitalandnonvitalteethasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT scottinicola clinicaloutcomeofbondedpartialindirectposteriorrestorationsonvitalandnonvitalteethasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis