Computer-assisted technologies used in oral rehabilitation and the clinical documentation of alleged advantages - a systematic review.

The objective of this systematic review is to identify current computer-assisted technologies used for managing patients with a need to re-establish craniofacial appearance, subjective discomfort and stomatognathic function, and the extent of their clinical documentation. Electronic search strategies were used for locating clinical studies in MEDLINE through PubMed and in the Cochrane library, and in the grey literature through searches on Google Scholar. The searches for commercial digital products for use in oral rehabilitation resulted in identifying 225 products per November 2016, used for patient diagnostics, communication and therapy purposes, and for other computer-assisted applications in context with oral rehabilitation. About one-third of these products were described in about 350 papers reporting from clinical human studies. The great majority of digital products for use in oral rehabilitation has no clinical documentation at all, while the products from a distinct minority of manufacturers have frequently appeared in more or less scientific reports. Moore's law apply also to digital dentistry, which predicts that the capacity of microprocessors will continue to become faster and with lower cost per performance unit, and innovative software programs will harness these improvements in performance. The net effect is the noticeable short product life cycle of digital products developed for use in oral rehabilitation and often lack of supportive clinical documentation. Nonetheless, clinicians must request clinically meaningful information about new digital products to assess net benefits for the patients or the dental professionals and not accept only technological verbiage as a basis for product purchases.

Methodological challenges in the study of dental occlusion.

This narrative review describes the methodological challenges in the study of dental occlusion. The reigning confusion about the scope of this topic is discussed, and a conceptual framework for understanding dental occlusion research is suggested. The characteristics of clinical studies used in the study of dental occlusion are presented within this proposed framework consisting of a triad comprising the relative positions of the teeth-mandible-maxilla, the oral functions and oral appearance. Challenges in the preparation for a clinical study of dental occlusion are reviewed, which include a discourse on the objectives of a clinical study and appropriateness of different study designs. Guidelines are provided for the conduct of studies with a central focus on dental occlusion and diagnostic tests, prognosis, therapy and aetiology, respectively. Summarising chapters present methodological challenges in designing a clinical study of dental occlusion and threats to the proper conduct of a clinical study.

Oral implants--the future.

The current and future application of implants to support intra- and extra-oral prostheses is a function not primarily of a current or eventual future, e.g., implant surface configuration, treatment procedure or loading protocol. In contrast, it must be understood by a more complex conceptualization of the practical application of the osseointegration phenomenon. This review will attempt to address the future use of oral implants based on current cutting edge research within the fundamentals that constitute the practical applications of the osseointegration concept.

Implants and/or teeth: consensus statements and recommendations.

In August 23-25, 2007, the Scandinavian Society for Prosthetic Dentistry in collaboration with the Danish Society of Oral Implantology arranged a consensus conference on the topic 'Implants and/or teeth'. It was preceded by a workshop in which eight focused questions were raised and answered in eight review articles using a systematic approach. Twenty-eight academicians and clinicians discussed the eight review papers with the purpose to reach consensus on questions relevant for the topic. At the conference the consensus statements were presented as well as lectures based on the review articles. In this article the methods used at the consensus workshop are briefly described followed by the statements with comments.

Amalgam waste management.

Dental amalgam has been extensively used as a tooth filling material for many decades and has beyond doubt saved millions of teeth that otherwise would have needed to be extracted. The release of amalgam particles into dental office wastewater is a matter of particular concern as amalgam particles could then be discharged into the environment. Amalgam waste discharges contribute to mercury in the environment through direct wastewater discharge, incineration, land-filling and sewage sludge incineration, although the discharge from dentistry is probably responsible for less than 1% of the total mercury discharged annually into the environment as a result of human activities. Nevertheless, dentists, by being producers of amalgam waste, have a responsibility and a duty of care for the proper management of this waste within their practices. Appropriate measures should be taken to minimise the amount of waste where possible or take action to ensure that all generated waste is disposed of in accordance with environmental legislation.

Wear of teeth due to occupational exposure to airborne olivine dust.

OBJECTIVES: To clarify whether high tooth wear of employees in a mining industry that extracts the mineral olivine could be associated with airborne dust exposure in their working environment. METHOD: The cumulative exposure to airborne mineral dust for the workers in the company was calculated on the basis of their period of employment multiplied by the airborne olivine-dust concentrations, which have been monitored continuously during the past 20 years for all divisions of the company. After invitation, 85% of the employees (n = 191) were examined clinically and their dentitions were photographed and duplicated in plaster casts. Four clinicians, working independently, examined the sets of casts/photographs for tooth wear and ranked these from most to least. Two groups of employees were compared with regard to tooth wear, i.e. the 30% with the highest (case) and the lowest (control) estimated dust exposure levels. Tooth wear in the case and control groups was compared using a non-parametric test based on rankings (Mann-Whitney test). RESULTS: Tooth wear differed significantly between the workers in the low and the high mineral dust exposure groups (p < 0.001). The differences were also apparent within three age subsets, although statistical significance was reached only in the 34-44 years subset (p = 0.002). Considerable individual variation was noted within the three exposure groups. CONCLUSION: Workers with high exposure to airborne olivine dust may contract considerable tooth wear.

Interventions for replacing missing teeth: bone augmentation techniques for dental implant treatment.

BACKGROUND: Dental implants require sufficient bone to adequately stabilise. For some patients implant treatment would not be an option without bone augmentation. A variety of materials and surgical techniques are available for use in bone augmentation. OBJECTIVES: To test the null hypothesis of no difference in the success, function, morbidity and patient satisfaction between different bone augmentation techniques for dental implant treatment. SEARCH STRATEGY: The Cochrane Oral Health Group's Trials Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched. Several dental journals were handsearched. The bibliographies of review articles were checked, and personal references were searched. Implant manufacturing companies were also contacted. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of different techniques and materials for augmenting bone for implant treatment. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Quality assessment was carried out and authors were contacted for any missing information. Data were independently extracted in duplicate. MAIN RESULTS: Four RCTs (n = 95) were suitable for inclusion in this review, assessing three different aspects of bone augmentation techniques: onlay grafting with and without a barrier membrane, grafting with a resorbable and non-resorbable membrane, and membranes for guided bone regeneration (GBR). Trials reported on augmentation procedures up to abutment connection only. At the patient level there were no statistically significant differences for the alternative techniques for onlay grafting with respect to the degree of bone graft resorption and wound dehiscence. One trial showed statistically significantly more infections in the non-resorbable group compared to the resorbable group, relative risk 0.05 (95% confidence interval (CI): 0.00 to 0.74). One study of GBR with a resorbable versus non-resorbable membrane indicated no statistically significant difference in early implant failure, reduction in bone defect or wound dehiscence. The other GBR study compared a non-resorbable membrane with no membrane and reported no statistically significant difference in wound infection or dehiscence but a significant increase in per cent bone gain for the test group compared to control, mean difference = 70 (95% CI: 36 to 104, p = 0.002). REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: There is no evidence from available RCTs supporting superior success with one or other of the alternative techniques examined. There was weak evidence that a non-resorbable membrane was better than no membrane for permitting bone growth about dental implants, and that a resorbable membrane over a bone graft may allow healing with fewer infections than a non-resorbable membrane.

Interventions for replacing missing teeth: surgical techniques for placing dental implants.

BACKGROUND: Many variations in the surgical technique for the placement of dental implants have been developed since the introduction of implant surgery into clinical practice. These include variations in the timing of implant placement in relation to the tooth removal, and variations in the way the recipient bone site is prepared, amongst others. OBJECTIVES: To test the null hypothesis of no difference in the success, function, morbidity, patient satisfaction and cost-effectiveness of different surgical techniques for placing dental implants, against the alternative hypothesis of a difference. SEARCH STRATEGY: The Cochrane Oral Health Group Trials Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched. In addition, the bibliographies of review articles were checked for studies outside the handsearched journals and personal references were searched. 55 implant companies were also contacted. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled clinical trials (RCTs) of implant surgical techniques. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Authors were contacted for details of randomisation and data and quality assessment was carried out (ME, PC). Data were independently extracted, in duplicate, by two reviewers (HW, PC). The Cochrane Oral Health Group's statistical guidelines were followed. MAIN RESULTS: Four RCTs (six publications) were suitable for inclusion in this review of the nine RCTs (11 publications) identified. Two different aspects of implant surgical technique were reported in these RCTs. These were, two versus four implants to support a mandibular overdenture and crestal versus vestibular incision for implant placement. At the patient level there were no statistically significant differences for any of these alternative techniques with respect to implant failures, marginal bone levels, morbidity or patient satisfaction. REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: This review included studies evaluating the surgical techniques of two versus four implants to support a mandibular overdenture and crestal versus vestibular incision for implant placement. Based on the available results of RCTs, there is no strong evidence supporting superior success with one or other of the alternative techniques for either of these two aspects of surgical technique. These conclusions are based on a few RCTs for each aspect of surgical technique and some with relatively short follow-up periods and few patients.

Interventions for replacing missing teeth: maintaining and re-establishing healthy tissues around dental implants.

BACKGROUND: To maintain healthy tissues around oral implants it is important to institute an effective preventive regimen (supportive therapy) and when a pathologic condition of the tissue around implants is diagnosed, an intervention should be initiated as soon as possible. Different maintenance regimens and treatment strategies for failing implants have been suggested, however it is unclear which are the most effective. OBJECTIVES: To test the null hypothesis of no difference between different interventions for maintaining or re-establishing healthy tissues around dental implants. SEARCH STRATEGY: The Cochrane Oral Health Group Specialised Register, The Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched. Hand searching included several dental journals. In addition, authors of all identified trials, fifty-five oral implant manufacturers and two extensive personal libraries (ME and AJ) were consulted. SELECTION CRITERIA: All randomised controlled trials of oral implants comparing agents or interventions for maintaining or re-establishing healthy tissues around dental implants. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Data were independently extracted, in duplicate, by two reviewers (ME & HW). Authors were contacted for details of randomisation and withdrawals and a quality assessment was carried out. The Cochrane Oral Health Group's statistical guidelines were followed. MAIN RESULTS: Nine RCTs were identified. Five of these trials, which reported results from a total of 127 patients, were suitable for inclusion in the review. REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: There is only a little reliable evidence for which are the most effective interventions for maintaining health around peri-implant tissues. There was no evidence that the use of powered or sonic toothbrushes was superior to manual toothbrushing. There is a weak evidence that Listerine mouthwash, used twice a day for 30 seconds, as adjunct to routine oral hygiene is effective in reducing plaque formation and marginal bleeding around implants. There was no evidence that phosphoric etching gel offered any clinical advantage over mechanical debridement. These findings are based on RCTs having short follow-up periods and few subjects. There is not any reliable evidence for the most effective regimens for long-term maintenance. For the treatment of failing implants (peri-implantitis) there is not any reliable evidence for preferring one therapeutic regimen over another. More RCTs should be conducted in this area. In particular, there is a definite need for trials investigating which is the most effective approach for the treatment of peri-implantitis and for trials with longer follow-up for maintenance. Such trials should be reported according the CONSORT guidelines (http://www.consort-statement.org/).

Interventions for replacing missing teeth: hyperbaric oxygen therapy for irradiated patients who require dental implants.

BACKGROUND: Dental implants offer one way to replace missing teeth and associated tissues. Patients who have undergone radiotherapy and those that have also undergone surgery for cancer may benefit particularly from reconstruction with implants. Hyperbaric oxygen therapy (HBO) has been advocated to improve the success of implant treatment in patients who have undergone radiotherapy but this remains a controversial issue. OBJECTIVES: This review aims to compare success, morbidity, patient satisfaction and cost effectiveness of dental implant treatment carried out with and without HBO in irradiated patients. SEARCH STRATEGY: The Cochrane Oral Health Group Specialised Register, the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched. In addition, the bibliographies of review articles were checked for studies outside the handsearched journals and personal references were searched. We also wrote to implant manufacturers and experts in the field. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials of HBO therapy for irradiated patients requiring dental implants. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: No randomised trials were identified. MAIN RESULTS: No data were available. REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: Clinicians ought to make patients aware of the lack of reliable clinical evidence for or against the clinical effectiveness of HBO in irradiated patients requiring dental implants. There is a definite need for RCTs to ascertain the effectiveness of HBO in irradiated patients requiring dental implants. These trials ought to be of a high quality and reported as recommended by the CONSORT statement (http://www.consort-statement.org/). Each clinical centre may have limited numbers of patients and it is likely that trials will need to be multi-centred.

Interventions for replacing missing teeth: preprosthetic surgery versus dental implants.

BACKGROUND: Preprosthetic surgery refers to the surgical procedures that can modify the oral anatomy to facilitate the retention of conventional dentures. Osseointegrated implants offer an alternative treatment to improve denture retention. A denture may be connected by special attachments to implants placed into the jaw. OBJECTIVES: To test the null hypothesis of no difference in the success (patient satisfaction and morbidity) and cost effectiveness between conventional prostheses that require preprosthetic surgery (PPS) and implant retained prostheses (IRO) that do not require preprosthetic surgery, against the alternative hypothesis of a difference. SEARCH STRATEGY: The Cochrane Oral Health Group (OHG) Specialised Register (May 2002), the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register (Issue 2, 2002), MEDLINE and EMBASE (May 2002) were searched. In addition, 55 implant companies were contacted and the bibliographies of review articles were checked for studies outside the hand searched journals and personal references were searched. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials comparing preprosthetic surgery and implant retained dentures for improving denture retention. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Data were independently extracted, in duplicate, by two reviewers (HW, PC). Authors were contacted for details of randomisation and withdrawals and a quality assessment was carried out (ME, PC). The Cochrane OHG's statistical guidelines were followed. MAIN RESULTS: One study, containing 60 participants, reported in four articles was identified for inclusion in this review. No studies were excluded. There was a statistically significant difference between mean patient satisfaction scores with patients in the IRO group being more satisfied in general at both year one (WMD = -0.66(95% CI; -1.28 to -0.04)) and five years (WMD = -0.90(95%CI; -1.74 to -0.06). Altered sensation of the lower lip and chin was measured at one year and five years. There was no statistically significant difference at either time point and no patients had altered sensation at five years. REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: There is weak evidence from the results of one randomised controlled trial including 60 subjects that patients are generally less satisfied with preprosthetic surgery and a conventional denture than with an implant retained denture. There is a need for more well designed trials comparing the success and cost-effectiveness of preprosthetic surgery and implant supported dentures. Such trials should be reported according to the CONSORT guidelines (http://www.consort-statement.org/). However, since preprosthetic surgery is considered to be an obsolete treatment nowadays, almost completely replaced by dental implants, it may be that new RCTs on this topic will not be designed.

Interventions for replacing missing teeth: different types of dental implants.

BACKGROUND: Dental implants are available in different materials, shapes and with different surface characteristics. In particular, numerous implant surface modifications have been developed for enhancing clinical performances. OBJECTIVES: To test the null hypothesis of no difference in clinical performance between various root-formed osseointegrated implant types. SEARCH STRATEGY: The Cochrane Oral Health Group Specialised Trials Register, The Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched. Hand searching included several dental journals. Bibliographies of relevant clinical trials and review articles were checked for studies outside the handsearched journals. In addition, authors of all identified trials and fifty-five oral implant manufacturers were contacted to find unpublished or ongoing RCTs. Two extensive personal libraries (ME and AJ) were consulted. The last electronic search was conducted 8th May 2002. SELECTION CRITERIA: All randomised controlled trials of oral implants comparing implants with different materials, shapes and surface properties having a follow-up of at least one year. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Data were independently extracted, in duplicate, by two reviewers (ME & HW). Authors were contacted for details of randomisation and withdrawals and a quality assessment was carried out. The Cochrane Oral Health Group's statistical guidelines were followed. MAIN RESULTS: Thirty publications, representing 13 different RCTs, were identified. Five of these RCTs (seven publications), which reported results from a total of 326 patients, were suitable for inclusion in the review. Six implant systems were compared: Astra, Branemark, IMZ, ITI, Steri-Oss and Southern with a follow-up ranging from one to three years. All implants were made in commercially pure titanium and had different shapes and surface preparations. On a patient rather than per implant basis there were no statistically significant differences for failures and marginal bone level changes on intra-oral radiographs between various implant systems. REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: There was no evidence that any of the implant systems evaluated was superior to the other. However, these findings are based on a few RCTs all having short follow-up periods and few participants. More RCTs should be conducted, with follow-up of at least five years and including a sufficient number of patients, to detect a true difference if any exists. Such trials should be reported according to the CONSORT guidelines (http://www.consort-statement.org/).

Quality assessment of randomized controlled trials of oral implants.

The aim of this study was to assess the quality of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) concerned with the effectiveness of oral implants and to create a trial register. A multilayered search strategy was used to identify all RCTs published by the end of 1999 in any language. The Cochrane Oral Health Group specialist register, PubMed, and personal libraries were searched. Seventy-four RCTs were identified. Forty-three articles, not presenting the same patient material, were independently assessed by 3 researchers using a specially designed form. A statistician assessed all trials for the appropriateness of statistics. The quality of each study was assessed on 7 items, including 3 key domains. Randomization and concealment allocation procedures were not described in 30 articles (70%). Reasons for withdrawals were not given in 10 reports (23%). No attempt at blinding was reported in 31 studies (72%). The quality of RCTs of oral implants is generally poor and needs to be improved.

Clinical trial of gingival retraction cords.

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: A wide spectrum of different gingival retraction cords is used, while the relative clinical efficacy of these cords remains undocumented. PURPOSE: This study aimed to determine whether clinicians were able to identify differences in clinical performance among 3 types of gingival retraction cords. METHODS AND MATERIAL: Dental students and faculty members ranked pairs or series of cords according to 6 criteria for clinical performance, with a blind experimental study design. Cords differed in consistency (knitted or twined) and impregnation (8% dl-epinephrine HCl, 0.5 mg/in or 25% aluminum sulfate, 0.5 mg/in). RESULTS: Knitted cords were ranked better than twined cords (P =.03). Cords containing epinephrine performed no better clinically than aluminum sulfate cords (P >.05). CONCLUSION: Clinicians were unable to detect any clinical advantages of using epinephrine impregnated gingival retraction cords compared with aluminum sulfate cords.