Interproximal contact loss between implant restorations and adjacent natural teeth: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: This systematic review was conducted to evaluate the prevalence of interproximal contact loss (ICL) between implant restorations and adjacent teeth in relation to age, gender, follow-up time, and arch location. METHODS: This study followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines and was registered in the Open Science Framework (OSF). The formulated population, intervention, comparison, outcome (PICO) question was "What is the prevalence of the ICL between implant restoration and adjacent teeth?" The search strategy used four main electronic databases and an additional manual search was performed until February 2023. Clinical studies that evaluated the prevalence of interproximal open contact between implant restorations and adjacent teeth were included. A qualitative analysis for clinical studies was used to assess the risk of bias. In addition, a single-arm meta-analysis of proportion was performed to evaluate the percentage of mesial versus distal open contact and total ICL between implant restoration and adjacent teeth. RESULTS: Fifteen studies published between 2014 and 2023 met the eligibility criteria. Seven studies presented ICL rates higher than 20%. All studies evaluated ICL in posterior regions (molar, premolar area). Five studies had an ICL rate lower than 50% and three studies had an ICL rate higher than 50%. One study assessed the interproximal contact at three months post-restoration insertion, four studies assessed the interproximal contact at 1-year follow-up and nine studies evaluated the interproximal contact over 2 years of follow-up. Mesial and distal ICL rates were 44.2% (95% CI: 30.6% to 58.6%) and 27.5% (95% CI: 10.5% to 55.0%), respectively. The heterogeneity between studies was high (I2 (95% CI) = 87.8% (75.9% to 93.8%). CONCLUSION: Based on the results of the included studies, the prevalence of ICL was high, occurring more frequently at the mesial contact. There were no significant differences in relation to age, gender, and arch location.

Students' perceptions and attitudes about digital dental technology is associated with their intention to use it.

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVES: To investigate factors associated with predoctoral students' intention to use dental technology in future practice using the theory of planned behavior. METHODS: A comprehensive survey was developed consisting of 29 questions grouped in three main domains: knowledge, perception, and suggestions. After students had completed their digital dentistry didactic courses in 2019, the University of Iowa-College of Dentistry and Dental Clinics D2, D3, and D4 classes completed the survey. The D1 class was excluded because they had not finished their digital dentistry didactic courses. The survey data were tabulated for each class separately to compare trends among classes. Each response was analyzed individually before creating scores for the various subdomains. A linear regression analysis was used to create the final model for the outcome variable (intention to use technology). RESULTS: The response rate was 95% (n = 232). The mean age of participants was 25.7 years (SD = 2.7). There were significant differences between the classes in their knowledge (p < 0.0001), perceived quality of training (p < 0.0001), and all perceptions related to digital dentistry. Controlling for significant covariates among higher level students, there were significant associations between intention to use dental technology and greater knowledge scores (p = 0.05), attitude (p < 0.0001), subjective social norms (p = 0.02), and perceived control on the future use of technology (p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Students may be motivated to use digital technology when they have good knowledge, feel that others are using it or endorsing its use, and perceive that they have control in their future practice.

Unclear if non-surgical adjuncts accelerate orthodontic treatment.

Data sourcesCochrane Oral Health Group's Trials Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Medline, Embase, LILACS, the metaRegister of Controlled Trials, the US National Institutes of Health Trials Register and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform.Study selectionRandomised controlled trials of orthodontic treatment using fixed appliances along with non-surgical adjunctive interventions to accelerate tooth movement.Data extraction and synthesisTwo reviewers independently selected studies, abstracted data and assessed risk of bias. Meta-analysis was not possible.ResultsTwo studies involving a total of 111 patients were included, both were at high risk of bias. The studies compared the use of Tooth Masseuse and OrthoAccel with conventional treatment mechanics. Using OrthoAccel with 30 Hz at 0.25 N for 20 minutes daily produced a higher rate of maxillary canine distalisation in comparison to the control group (MD 0.37 mm/month; 95% CI -0.07 to 0.81; P = 0.05). Whilst this difference suggested 50% faster tooth movement using the vibrational appliance, the absolute differences were marginal and deemed clinically unimportant. Similar levels of non-serious adverse effects were reported in the intervention and control groups with a risk ratio of 0.96 (95% CI 0.32 to 2.85). Overall, the quality of the evidence was very low and therefore we cannot rely on the findings.ConclusionsThere is very little clinical research concerning the effectiveness of non-surgical interventions to accelerate orthodontic treatment. The available evidence is of very low quality and so it is not possible to determine if there is a positive effect of non-surgical adjunctive interventions to accelerate tooth movement. Although there have been claims that there may be a positive effect of light vibrational forces, results of the current studies do not reach either statistical or clinical significance. Further well-designed and rigorous RCTs with longer follow-up periods are required to determine whether non-surgical interventions may result in a clinically important reduction in the duration of orthodontic treatment, without any adverse effects.