Publication of statistically significant research findings in prosthodontics & implant dentistry in the context of other dental specialties

OBJECTIVES To assess the hypothesis that there is excessive reporting of statistically significant studies published in prosthodontic and implantology journals, which could indicate selective publication. METHODS The last 30 issues of 9 journals in prosthodontics and implant dentistry were hand-searched for articles with statistical analyses. The percentages of significant and non-significant results were tabulated by parameter of interest. Univariable/multivariable logistic regression analyses were applied to identify possible predictors of reporting statistically significance findings. The results of this study were compared with similar studies in dentistry with random-effects meta-analyses. RESULTS From the 2323 included studies 71% of them reported statistically significant results, with the significant results ranging from 47% to 86%. Multivariable modeling identified that geographical area and involvement of statistician were predictors of statistically significant results. Compared to interventional studies, the odds that in vitro and observational studies would report statistically significant results was increased by 1.20 times (OR: 2.20, 95% CI: 1.66-2.92) and 0.35 times (OR: 1.35, 95% CI: 1.05-1.73), respectively. The probability of statistically significant results from randomized controlled trials was significantly lower compared to various study designs (difference: 30%, 95% CI: 11-49%). Likewise the probability of statistically significant results in prosthodontics and implant dentistry was lower compared to other dental specialties, but this result did not reach statistical significant (P>0.05). CONCLUSIONS The majority of studies identified in the fields of prosthodontics and implant dentistry presented statistically significant results. The same trend existed in publications of other specialties in dentistry.

Single crowns versus conventional fillings for the restoration of root-filled teeth.

BACKGROUND Endodontic treatment involves removal of the dental pulp and its replacement by a root canal filling. Restoration of root filled teeth can be challenging due to structural differences between vital and non-vital root-filled teeth. Direct restoration involves placement of a restorative material e.g. amalgam or composite, directly into the tooth. Indirect restorations consist of cast metal or ceramic (porcelain) crowns. The choice of restoration depends on the amount of remaining tooth, and may influence durability and cost. The decision to use a post and core in addition to the crown is clinician driven. The comparative clinical performance of crowns or conventional fillings used to restore root-filled teeth is unknown. This review updates the original, which was published in 2012. OBJECTIVES To assess the effects of restoration of endodontically treated teeth (with or without post and core) by crowns versus conventional filling materials. SEARCH METHODS We searched the following databases: the Cochrane Oral Health Group's Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE via OVID, EMBASE via OVID, CINAHL via EBSCO, LILACS via BIREME. We also searched the reference lists of articles and ongoing trials registries.There were no restrictions regarding language or date of publication. The search is up-to-date as of 26 March 2015. SELECTION CRITERIA Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi-randomised controlled trials in participants with permanent teeth that have undergone endodontic treatment. Single full coverage crowns compared with any type of filling materials for direct restoration or indirect partial restorations (e.g. inlays and onlays). Comparisons considered the type of post and core used (cast or prefabricated post), if any. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS Two review authors independently extracted data from the included trial and assessed its risk of bias. We carried out data analysis using the 'treatment as allocated' patient population, expressing estimates of intervention effect for dichotomous data as risk ratios, with 95% confidence intervals (CI). MAIN RESULTS We included one trial, which was judged to be at high risk of performance, detection and attrition bias. The 117 participants with a root-filled, premolar tooth restored with a carbon fibre post, were randomised to either a full coverage metal-ceramic crown or direct adhesive composite restoration. None experienced a catastrophic failure (i.e. when the restoration cannot be repaired), although only 104 teeth were included in the final, three-year assessment. There was no clear difference between the crown and composite group and the composite only group for non-catastrophic failures of the restoration (1/54 versus 3/53; RR 0.33; 95% CI 0.04 to 3.05) or failures of the post (2/54 versus 1/53; RR 1.96; 95% CI 0.18 to 21.01) at three years. The quality of the evidence for these outcomes is very low. There was no evidence available for any of our secondary outcomes: patient satisfaction and quality of life, incidence or recurrence of caries, periodontal health status, and costs. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS There is insufficient evidence to assess the effects of crowns compared to conventional fillings for the restoration of root-filled teeth. Until more evidence becomes available, clinicians should continue to base decisions about how to restore root-filled teeth on their own clinical experience, whilst taking into consideration the individual circumstances and preferences of their patients.

Stiffness, Strength, and Failure Modes of Implant-Supported Monolithic Lithium Disilicate Crowns: Influence of Titanium and Zirconia Abutments

PURPOSE The objective of this study was to evaluate stiffness, strength, and failure modes of monolithic crowns produced using computer-aided design/computer-assisted manufacture, which are connected to diverse titanium and zirconia abutments on an implant system with tapered, internal connections. MATERIALS AND METHODS Twenty monolithic lithium disilicate (LS2) crowns were constructed and loaded on bone level-type implants in a universal testing machine under quasistatic conditions according to DIN ISO 14801. Comparative analysis included a 2 × 2 format: prefabricated titanium abutments using proprietary bonding bases (group A) vs nonproprietary bonding bases (group B), and customized zirconia abutments using proprietary Straumann CARES (group C) vs nonproprietary Astra Atlantis (group D) material. Stiffness and strength were assessed and calculated statistically with the Wilcoxon rank sum test. Cross-sections of each tested group were inspected microscopically. RESULTS Loaded LS2 crowns, implants, and abutment screws in all tested specimens (groups A, B, C, and D) did not show any visible fractures. For an analysis of titanium abutments (groups A and B), stiffness and strength showed equally high stability. In contrast, proprietary and nonproprietary customized zirconia abutments exhibited statistically significant differences with a mean strength of 366 N (Astra) and 541 N (CARES) (P < .05); as well as a mean stiffness of 884 N/mm (Astra) and 1,751 N/mm (CARES) (P < .05), respectively. Microscopic cross-sections revealed cracks in all zirconia abutments (groups C and D) below the implant shoulder. CONCLUSION Depending on the abutment design, prefabricated titanium abutment and proprietary customized zirconia implant-abutment connections in conjunction with monolithic LS2 crowns had the best results in this laboratory investigation.

Time-Efficiency Analysis Comparing Digital and Conventional Workflows for Implant Crowns: A Prospective Clinical Crossover Trial

PURPOSE To compare time-efficiency in the production of implant crowns using a digital workflow versus the conventional pathway. MATERIALS AND METHODS This prospective clinical study used a crossover design that included 20 study participants receiving single-tooth replacements in posterior sites. Each patient received a customized titanium abutment plus a computer-aided design/computer-assisted manufacture (CAD/CAM) zirconia suprastructure (for those in the test group, using digital workflow) and a standardized titanium abutment plus a porcelain-fused-to-metal crown (for those in the control group, using a conventional pathway). The start of the implant prosthetic treatment was established as the baseline. Time-efficiency analysis was defined as the primary outcome, and was measured for every single clinical and laboratory work step in minutes. Statistical analysis was calculated with the Wilcoxon rank sum test. RESULTS All crowns could be provided within two clinical appointments, independent of the manufacturing process. The mean total production time, as the sum of clinical plus laboratory work steps, was significantly different. The mean ± standard deviation (SD) time was 185.4 ± 17.9 minutes for the digital workflow process and 223.0 ± 26.2 minutes for the conventional pathway (P = .0001). Therefore, digital processing for overall treatment was 16% faster. Detailed analysis for the clinical treatment revealed a significantly reduced mean ± SD chair time of 27.3 ± 3.4 minutes for the test group compared with 33.2 ± 4.9 minutes for the control group (P = .0001). Similar results were found for the mean laboratory work time, with a significant decrease of 158.1 ± 17.2 minutes for the test group vs 189.8 ± 25.3 minutes for the control group (P = .0001). CONCLUSION Only a few studies have investigated efficiency parameters of digital workflows compared with conventional pathways in implant dental medicine. This investigation shows that the digital workflow seems to be more time-efficient than the established conventional production pathway for fixed implant-supported crowns. Both clinical chair time and laboratory manufacturing steps could be effectively shortened with the digital process of intraoral scanning plus CAD/CAM technology.

Retrievability of implant-supported crowns when using three different cements: a controlled clinical trial

PURPOSE The purpose of this study was to analyze the removal of implant-supported crowns retained by three different cements using an air-accelerated crown remover and to evaluate the patients' response to the procedure. MATERIALS AND METHODS This controlled clinical trial was conducted with 21 patients (10 women, 11 men; mean age: 51 ± 10.2 years) who had received a total of 74 implants (all placed in the posterior zone of the mandible). Four months after implant surgery, the crowns were cemented on standard titanium abutments of different heights. Three different cements (two temporary: Harvard TEMP and Improv; and one definitive: Durelon) were used and randomly assigned to the patients. Eight months later, one blinded investigator removed all crowns. The number of activations of the instrument (CORONAflex, KaVo) required for crown removal was recorded. The patients completed a questionnaire retrospectively to determine the impact of the procedure and to gauge their subjective perception. A linear regression model and descriptive statistics were used for data analysis. RESULTS All crowns could be retrieved without any technical complications or damage. Both abutment height (P = .019) and cement type (P = .004) had a significant effect on the number of activations, but the type of cement was more important. An increased total number of activations had no or only a weak correlation to the patients' perception of concussion, noise, pain, and unwillingness to use the device. CONCLUSIONS Cemented implant crowns can be removed, and the application of an air-accelerated device is a practicable method. A type of cement with appropriate retention force has to be selected. The impact on the patients' subjective perception should be taken into account.

Bone-added periodontal plastic surgery: a new approach in esthetic dentistry

This article proposes a combined technique including bone grafting, connective tissue graft, and coronally advanced flap to create some space for simultaneous bone regrowth and root coverage. A 23 year-old female was referred to our private clinic with a severe class II Miller recession and lack of attached gingiva. The suggested treatment plan comprised of root coverage combined with xenograft bone particles. The grafted area healed well and full coverage was achieved at 12-month follow-up visit. Bone-added periodontal plastic surgery can be considered as a practical procedure for management of deep gingival recession without buccal bone plate.

Zirconia-Based Screw-Retained Prostheses Supported by Implants: A Retrospective Study on Technical Complications and Failures

BACKGROUND Little information is yet available on zirconia-based prostheses supported by implants. PURPOSE To evaluate technical problems and failures of implant-supported zirconia-based prostheses with exclusive screw-retention. MATERIAL AND METHODS Consecutive patients received screw-retained zirconia-based prostheses supported by implants and were followed over a time period of 5 years. The implant placement and prosthetic rehabilitation were performed in one clinical setting, and all patients participated in the maintenance program. The treatment comprised single crowns (SCs) and fixed dental prostheses (FDPs) of three to 12 units. Screw-retention of the CAD/CAM-fabricated SCs and FDPs was performed with direct connection at the implant level. The primary outcome was the complete failure of zirconia-based prostheses; outcome measures were fracture of the framework or extensive chipping resulting in the need for refabrication. A life table analysis was performed, the cumulative survival rate (CSR) calculated, and a Kaplan-Meier curve drawn. RESULTS Two hundred and ninety-four implants supported 156 zirconia-based prostheses in 95 patients (52 men, 43 women, average age 59.1 ± 11.7 years). Sixty-five SCs and 91 FDPs were identified, comprising a total of 441 units. Fractures of the zirconia framework and extensive chipping resulted in refabrication of nine prostheses. Nearly all the prostheses (94.2%) remained in situ during the observation period. The 5-year CSR was 90.5%, and 41 prostheses (14 SCs, 27 FDPs) comprising 113 units survived for an observation time of more than 5 years. Six SCs exhibited screw loosening, and polishing of minor chipping was required for five prostheses. CONCLUSIONS This study shows that zirconia-based implant-supported fixed prostheses exhibit satisfactory treatment outcomes and that screw-retention directly at the implant level is feasible.