Restorative dentistry and restorative materials over the next 20 years: A Delphi survey

OBJECTIVES The aim of this study was to forecast trends in restorative dentistry over the next 20 years and to identify treatment goals and corresponding properties of restorative materials. METHODS Using the Delphi method, a panel of 3 experts identified 8 key questions, which were sent to experts in restorative and preventive dentistry. In round 1 of this survey, 15 international experts devised a clearer semantic definition of the key questions and the completion of respective items for two additional rounds. In round 2, 125 experts from 35 countries rated the items developed in round 1 using a Likert scale. In round 3, the same 125 experts received the ratings of round 2 and were asked to agree or disagree to these ratings by re-voting on all key questions and items. A total of 105 experts re-voted and finally took part in the complete survey. Among the 8 key questions, two questions were selected for the present report: (Q1) "What will be the future role of restorative treatment?" and (Q6) "What will be the key qualities for clinical success of restorations?" For both questions and the respective items, the experts were asked to evaluate the importance and the feasibility for later calculation of the scientific value (i.e. the opportunity, where opportunity=importance+[importance-feasibility]). RESULTS The three items of highest importance for Q1 were "preservation of existing enamel and dentin tissue," "prevention of secondary caries," and "maintenance of the pulp vitality," and for Q6 they were "optimization of adhesion," "biocompatibility," and "minimizing technical sensitivity." SIGNIFICANCE Bioactivity toward the pulp-dentin complex and prevention of secondary caries were the items generally rated as having the highest opportunity.

Improvements in Implant Dentistry over the Last Decade: Comparison of Survival and Complication Rates in Older and Newer Publications

Purpose: The objective of this systematic review was to assess and compare the survival and complication rates of implant-supported prostheses reported in studies published in the year 2000 and before, to those reported in studies published after the year 2000. Materials and Methods: Three electronic searches complemented by manual searching were conducted to identify 139 prospective and retrospective studies on implant-supported prostheses. The included studies were divided in two groups: a group of 31 older studies published in the year 2000 or before, and a group of 108 newer studies published after the year 2000. Survival and complication rates were calculated using Poisson regression models, and multivariable robust Poisson regression was used to formally compare the outcomes of older and newer studies. Results: The 5-year survival rate of implant-supported prostheses was significantly increased in newer studies compared with older studies. The overall survival rate increased from 93.5% to 97.1%. The survival rate for cemented prostheses increased from 95.2% to 97.9%; for screw-retained reconstruction, from 77.6% to 96.8%; for implant-supported single crowns, from 92.6% to 97.2%; and for implant-supported fixed dental prostheses (FDPs), from 93.5% to 96.4%. The incidence of esthetic complications decreased in more recent studies compared with older ones, but the incidence of biologic complications was similar. The results for technical complications were inconsistent. There was a significant reduction in abutment or screw loosening by implant-supported FDPs. On the other hand, the total number of technical complications and the incidence of fracture of the veneering material was significantly increased in the newer studies. To explain the increased rate of complications, minor complications are probably reported in more detail in the newer publications. Conclusions: The results of the present systematic review demonstrated a positive learning curve in implant dentistry, represented in higher survival rates and lower complication rates reported in more recent clinical studies. The incidence of esthetic, biologic, and technical complications, however, is still high. Hence, it is important to identify these complications and their etiology to make implant treatment even more predictable in the future.