Direct and Indirect Restorations for Endodontically Treated Teeth: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis, IAAD 2017 Consensus Conference Paper.

PURPOSE: The primary objective of this systematic review was to compare treatment outcomes of direct and indirect permanent restorations in endodontically treated teeth, and provide clinical suggestions for restoring teeth after endodontic treatment. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Electronic databases (Medline, EMBASE, CENTRAL) and gray literature were screened for articles in English that reported on prospective and retrospective clinical studies of direct or indirect restorations after endodontic treatment with an observation period of at least 3 years. Primary outcomes were determined to be short-term (≤ 5 years) and medium-term (> 5 and ≤ 10 years) survival. Secondary outcomes included restorative and endodontic success of restored teeth. The quality of included studies and risk of bias were assessed using Cochrane Collaboration's tool for RCTs (randomized controlled trials), the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for cohort studies, and the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) methodology checklist for cross-sectional studies. The GRADE system was used for assessing collective strength of the overall body of evidence. RESULTS: Of 2547 screened articles, only 9 (2 RCTs, 3 retrospective cohort studies, 3 cross-sectional studies) met the inclusion criteria, and 8 studies were used in the meta-analysis. In general, indirect restorations (mostly full crowns) showed higher 5-year survival (OR 0.28, 95% CI 0.19-0.43, p < 0.00001) and 10-year survival (OR 0.20, 95% CI 0.12-0.31, p < 0.00001) than direct restorations. However, there was no statistical difference in short-term (≤ 5-years) restorative success (OR 0.32, 95% CI 0.05-2.12, p = 0.24) and endodontic success (OR 0.88, 95% CI 0.72-1.08, p = 0.22). CONCLUSIONS: Based on current evidence, there is a weak recommendation for indirect restorations to restore endodontically treated teeth, especially for teeth with extensive coronal damage. Indirect restorations using mostly crowns have higher short-term (5-year) and medium-term (10-year) survival than do direct restorations using composite or amalgam (GRADE quality of evidence: low to moderate), but no difference in short-term (≤ 5 years) restorative success (low quality) and endodontic success (very low quality). There is a need for high-quality clinical trials, especially well-designed RCTs.

Occlusal designs on masticatory ability and patient satisfaction with complete denture: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVES: To systematically review clinical outcomes of different occlusal designs of complete dentures. METHODS: Using a various key words, an electronic search of clinical trials published in English and Chinese literature was performed from four databases: Medline/PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and CBM. Furthermore, a manual searching of the relevant journals and the bibliographies of reviews was performed. General satisfaction, masticatory ability, retention, and stability were major criteria for the evaluation of the outcomes. Studies met these criteria were selected for a full-text reading. The whole processes were performed by two reviewers independently. RESULTS: This systematic review started with 1030 articles, which were finally narrowed down to seven, according to the inclusion criteria. The following occlusal designs were included and analyzed: anatomic occlusion, balanced occlusion, canine guidance occlusion, lingualized occlusion, monoplane occlusion, and bilateral-balanced and canine-guided design. Three of the seven studies showed that lingualized occlusion had ratings of higher patients' satisfaction than other occlusion designs. On the other hand, the canine-guided occlusion dentures demonstrated equal or better clinical performances than bilateral-balanced dentures. Because of the heterogeneity and bias of the studies, it was not possible to analyze the data statistically. CONCLUSIONS: Lingualized occlusion and canine-guided occlusion can be successfully applied in the fabrication of complete dentures. Canine guided occlusion has also been shown to be satisfactory. More well-controlled randomized trials are needed regarding canine-guided occlusion and the relationship between alveolar ridge resorption, different occlusal schemes and patient satisfaction. The conventional prosthodontic wisdom that complete dentures require a balanced occlusal design is not supported by the included literature. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: A suitable occlusal scheme would be a critical factor for a successful complete denture. However, there is no conclusive evidence to support which occlusal design is more appropriate for fabricating a successful complete denture. In occlusal design of conventional complete denture, lingualized occlusion can provide better clinical outcomes than other occlusal designs; meanwhile, canine-guided occlusion also can be used in clinic practice.