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.

Microbiota at teeth and implants in partially edentulous patients. A 10-year retrospective study.

OBJECTIVE To determine the microbiota at implants and adjacent teeth 10 years after placement of implants with a sandblasted and acid-etched surface. MATERIAL AND METHODS Plaque samples obtained from the deepest sites of 504 implants and of 493 adjacent teeth were analyzed for certain bacterial species associated with periodontitis, for staphylococci, for aerobic gram-negative rods, and for yeasts using nucleic acid-based methods. RESULTS Species known to be associated with periodontitis were detectable at 6.2-78.4% of the implants. Significantly higher counts at implants in comparison with teeth were assessed for Tannerella forsythia, Parvimonas micra, Fusobacterium nucleatum/necrophorum, and Campylobacter rectus. Higher counts of periodontopathogenic species were detectable at implants of current smokers than at those of non-smokers. In addition, those species were found in higher quantities at implants of subjects with periodontitis. The prevalence of Prevotella intermedia, Treponema denticola, C. rectus, and moreover of Staphylococcus warneri might be associated with peri-implant inflammation. Selected staphylococcal species (not Staphylococcus aureus), aerobic gram-negative rods, and yeasts were frequently detected, but with the exception of S. warneri, they did not show any association with periodontal or peri-implant diseases. CONCLUSIONS Smoking and periodontal disease are risk factors for colonization of periodontopathic bacteria at implants. Those bacterial species may play a potential role in peri-implant inflammation. The role of S. warneri needs further validation.

Host-derived biomarkers at teeth and implants in partially edentulous patients. A 10-year retrospective study.

OBJECTIVES To assess a selection of host-derived biomarkers in peri-implant sulcus fluid (PISF) and gingival crevicular fluid (GCF) from adjacent teeth 10 years following implant placement. MATERIAL AND METHODS Peri-implant sulcus fluid and GCF samples obtained from the deepest sites of 504 implants and 493 adjacent teeth were analysed for levels of interleukin (IL)-1β, matrix metalloproteinase (MMP)-3, MMP-8, MMP-1, and MMP-1 bound to tissue inhibitor of MMP (TIMP)-1 (MMP-1/TIMP-1) by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) technique. RESULTS Overall, MMP-8 was detected in 90% of the sites. In more than 50% of the sites, IL-1β was identified while in 30% of the sites MMP-1, MMP-1/TIMP-1 and MMP-3 were found over the detection level. Increased biomarkers levels from PISF and GCF were positively correlated (r = 0.375-0.702; P < 0.001). However, no qualitative and quantitative differences were found between PISF and GCF. The levels of MMP-1 were negatively correlated with those of MMP-1/TIMP-1 at implants (r = -0.644; P < 0.001). Median MMP-1 levels at implants were high (5.17 pg/site) in subjects with severe chronic periodontitis and low in patients with mild-to-moderate chronic periodontitis (0 pg/site; P = 0.026) or gingivitis (0 pg/site; P = 0.034). Levels of IL-1β were found to be different in GCF according to the periodontal conditions (P = 0.001) with the highest level found in mild-to-moderate periodontitis (6.2 pg/site). Clinical attachment levels at implants demonstrated an inverse correlation with MMP-1/TIMP-1 (r = -0.147; P = 0.001). CONCLUSIONS Increased levels of MMP-8 and IL-1β in PISF or GCF may be associated with inflammation around teeth and implants while lower levels of MMP-1/TIMP-1 may be an indicator of disease progression around implants.

A retrospective analysis of factors influencing the success of autotransplanted posterior teeth

BACKGROUND Survival and success rates of tooth transplantations even after long follow-up periods have been shown to be very high. Nevertheless, it is important to analyse factors potentially influencing these rates. The aim of this study was to assess the influence on success of potential factors. METHODS The research was based on a retrospective analysis of clinical and radiological data from a sample of 59 subjects (75 transplanted teeth). The follow-up period varied from 0.44 to 12.28 years (mean 3.95 years). Success rates were calculated and depicted with Kaplan-Meier plots. Log-rank tests were used to analyse the effect of root development stage, apex width, the use of enamel matrix proteins or the surgeon on success of transplantations. RESULTS Results for success of premolar transplantations were comparable with already published data, while molars performed worse than shown in other studies. The surgeon performing the transplantation (p = 0.001) and tooth type (p ≤ 0.001) were significantly associated with transplantation success. Use of enamel matrix proteins (p = 0.10), root development stage (p = 0.13), the recipient area (p = 0.48) and apex width (p = 0.59) were not significantly associated with success. CONCLUSIONS Molar transplantations were not as successful as premolar transplantations; however, success rates varied greatly depending on the surgeon's experience. The use of enamel matrix proteins as well as root development stage, the recipient area and apex width did not show significant associations with success of tooth transplantations.