Clinical performance of and patient satisfaction with conventional complete dentures with different occlusal schemes: A systematic review of systematic reviews.

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: The complete denture occlusal scheme may influence clinical performance and patient satisfaction. However, a consensus on which occlusal scheme should be used for complete denture users is lacking. As a result, many dentists choose the scheme based on their preferences and clinical experience. PURPOSE: The purpose of this review was to assess the methodological quality and summarize the scientific evidence from secondary studies about the influence of occlusal schemes on the clinical performance of and patient satisfaction with complete dentures. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Ten sources were surveyed according to the patient, intervention, comparison, outcome (PICO) strategy. Systematic reviews that evaluated the clinical performance and patient satisfaction (O) of rehabilitated edentulous patients with conventional complete dentures (P) under different occlusal schemes (I/C) were included. Methodological quality was assessed by using A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) 2 tool by 2 authors independently. The effect of each occlusal scheme in comparison with others was summarized and classified as positive, neutral, negative, or inconclusive based on the conclusions of the systematic review concerning clinical performance and patient satisfaction outcomes. RESULTS: The search led to the inclusion of 10 systematic reviews. Seven were classified as of critically low, 2 as low, and 1 as moderate methodological quality. The following occlusal designs were included and analyzed: bilateral balanced occlusion, lingualized occlusion, canine guidance, group function, and monoplane occlusion. Bilateral balanced occlusion and canine guidance obtained satisfactory results for both outcomes. Lingualized occlusion showed a trend toward better results than other occlusal schemes for normal and resorbed ridges. Group function presented mainly inconclusive results, and monoplane occlusion did not deliver satisfactory outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: The present overview concluded that occlusal schemes might interfere with the clinical performance of and patient satisfaction with complete dentures. Lingualized, bilateral balanced, and canine guidance are preferred compared with monoplane occlusion, but lingualized occlusion tends to show better results in some reviews. However, the results should be carefully considered because of the low quality of the systematic reviews included.

Evaluation of physical-mechanical properties of self-adhesive versus conventional resin cements

Aim: The purpose of this study was to compare the microhardness, diametral tensile strength, compressive strength and the rheological properties of self-adhesive versus conventional resin cements. Methods: Specimens of a conventional (RelyX ARC) and 3 self-adhesive (RelyX U200, Maxcem Elite, Bifix SE) types of resin cements were prepared. The Knoop test was used to assess the microhardness, using a Microhardness Tester FM 700. For the diametral tensile strength test, a tensile strength was applied at a speed of 0.6 mm/minute. A universal testing machine was used for the analysis of compressive strength and a thermo-controlled oscillating rheometer was used for the Rheology test. One-way ANOVA and Tukey's test (α=0.05) were used for data analysis. Results:According to microhardness analysis, all the cements were statistically similar (p>0.05), except for Maxcem that presented lower hardness compared with the other cements in relation to the top surface (p<0.05). In the diametral tensile strength test, Relyx U200 and RelyX ARC cements were statistically similar (p>0.05), presented higher value when compared to the Maxcem and Bifix cements (p<0.05). The compressive strength of RelyX ARC and Maxcem Elite cements was statistically higher than RelyX U200 and Bifix cements (p<0.05). Regarding the rheology test, Maxcem Elite and RelyX ARC cements showed a high modulus of elasticity. Conclusions: The self-adhesive cements presented poorer mechanical properties than conventional resin cement. Chemical structure and types of monomers employed interfere directly in the mechanical properties of resin cements