Annual review of selected scientific literature: A report of the Committee on Scientific Investigation of the American Academy of Restorative Dentistry.

The Scientific Investigation Committee of the American Academy of Restorative Dentistry offers this review of the 2022 dental literature to briefly touch on several topics of interest to modern restorative dentistry. Each committee member brings discipline-specific expertise in their subject areas that include (in order of the appearance in this report): prosthodontics; periodontics, alveolar bone, and peri-implant tissues; dental materials and therapeutics; occlusion and temporomandibular disorders; sleep-related breathing disorders; oral medicine and oral and maxillofacial surgery; and dental caries and cariology. The authors focused their efforts on reporting information likely to influence the daily dental treatment decisions of the reader with an emphasis on innovations, new materials and processes, and future trends in dentistry. With the tremendous volume of literature published daily in dentistry and related disciplines, this review cannot be comprehensive. Instead, its purpose is to update interested readers and provide valuable resource material for those willing to subsequently pursue greater detail on their own. Our intent remains to assist colleagues in navigating the tremendous volume of newly minted information produced annually. Finally, we hope that readers find this work helpful in managing patients.

Annual review of selected scientific literature: A report of the Committee on Scientific Investigation of the American Academy of Restorative Dentistry.

The Scientific Investigation Committee of the American Academy of Restorative Dentistry offers this review of the 2021 dental literature in restorative dentistry to inform busy dentists regarding noteworthy scientific and clinical progress over the past year. Each member of the committee brings discipline-specific expertise to coverage of this broad topical area. Specific subject areas addressed, in order of the appearance in this report, include COVID-19 and the dental profession (new); prosthodontics; periodontics, alveolar bone, and peri-implant tissues; implant dentistry; dental materials and therapeutics; occlusion and temporomandibular disorders; sleep-related breathing disorders; oral medicine and oral and maxillofacial surgery; and dental caries and cariology. The authors focused their efforts on reporting information likely to influence daily dental treatment decisions with an emphasis on future trends in dentistry. With the tremendous volume of dentistry and related literature being published daily, this review cannot possibly be comprehensive. Rather, its purpose is to update interested readers and provide important resource material for those interested in pursuing greater details on their own. It remains our intent to assist colleagues in negotiating the extensive volume of important information being published annually. It is our hope that readers find this work useful in successfully managing the patients and dental problems they encounter.

Annual review of selected scientific literature: A report of the Committee on Scientific Investigation of the American Academy of Restorative Dentistry.

The Scientific Investigation Committee of the American Academy of Restorative Dentistry offers this review of the 2020 professional literature in restorative dentistry to inform busy dentists regarding noteworthy scientific and clinical progress over the past year. Each member of the committee brings discipline-specific expertise to this work to cover this broad topic. Specific subject areas addressed include prosthodontics; periodontics, alveolar bone, and peri-implant tissues; implant dentistry; dental materials and therapeutics; occlusion and temporomandibular disorders (TMDs); sleep-related breathing disorders; oral medicine and oral and maxillofacial surgery; and dental caries and cariology. The authors focused their efforts on reporting information likely to influence day-to-day dental treatment decisions with a keen eye on future trends in the profession. With the tremendous volume of dentistry and related literature being published today, this review cannot possibly be comprehensive. The purpose is to update interested readers and provide important resource material for those interested in pursuing greater detail. It remains our intent to assist colleagues in navigating the extensive volume of important information being published annually. It is our hope that readers find this work useful in successfully managing the dental patients they encounter.

Annual review of selected scientific literature: A report of the Committee on Scientific Investigation of the American Academy of Restorative Dentistry.

This comprehensive review of the 2019 restorative dental literature is offered to inform busy dentists regarding remarkable publications and noteworthy progress made in the profession. Developed by the Scientific Investigation Committee of the American Academy of Restorative Dentistry, each author brings discipline-specific expertise to 1 of 8 sections of the report: (1) prosthodontics; (2) periodontics, alveolar bone, and peri-implant tissues; (3) implant dentistry; (4) dental materials and therapeutics; (5) occlusion and temporomandibular disorders; (6) sleep-related breathing disorders; (7) oral medicine and oral and maxillofacial surgery; and (8) dental caries and cariology. The report targets important information likely to influence day-to-day dental treatment decisions. Each review is not intended to stand alone but to update interested readers so that they may visit source material when greater detail is desired. As the profession moves toward evidence-based clinical decision-making, an incredible volume of potentially valuable dental literature continues to increase. It is the intention of this review and its authors to provide assistance in negotiating the extensive dental literature published in 2019. It is our hope that readers find this work useful in the clinical management of dental patients.

Annual review of selected scientific literature: A report of the Committee on Scientific Investigation of the American Academy of Restorative Dentistry.

This comprehensive review of the 2018 dental literature is provided to inform busy dentists about progress in the profession. Developed by the Committee on Scientific Investigation of the American Academy of Restorative Dentistry, each author brings discipline-specific expertise to one of the 8 sections of the report including (1) prosthodontics; (2) periodontics, alveolar bone, and peri-implant tissues; (3) implant dentistry; (4) dental materials and therapeutics; (5) occlusion and temporomandibular disorders; (6) sleep-related breathing disorders; (7) oral medicine and oral and maxillofacial surgery; and (8) dental caries and cariology. The report targets important information that will likely influence day-to-day treatment decisions. Each review is not intended to stand alone but to update interested readers so that they may visit source materials if greater detail is desired. As the profession continues its march toward evidence-based clinical decision-making, an already voluminous library of potentially valuable dental literature continues to grow. It is the intention of this review and its authors to provide assistance in navigating the extensive dental literature published in 2018. It is our hope that readers find this work useful in the clinical management of patients moving forward.

Annual review of selected scientific literature: A report of the Committee on Scientific Investigation of the American Academy of Restorative Dentistry.

PROBLEM: There are countless numbers of scientific studies published in countless scientific journals on subjects related to restorative dentistry. PURPOSE: The purpose of this article is to review pertinent scientific studies published in 2017 on topics of interest to restorative dentists. METHODS AND MATERIALS: The authors, considered to be experts in their disciplines searched the scientific literature in 7 different areas (prosthodontics, periodontics, dental materials, occlusion and temporomandibular disorders, sleep-disordered breathing, oral medicine and oral and maxillofacial surgery and dental caries). Pertinent articles were either identified and referenced or reviewed. RESULTS: A total of 437 articles in 7 disciplines were identified or reviewed. CONCLUSIONS: An impressive amount of scientific literature related to restorative dentistry was published in 2017. The evidence presented in this article can assist dentists in the practice of contemporary evidence-based dentistry.

Annual review of selected scientific literature: Report of the committee on scientific investigation of the American Academy of Restorative Dentistry.

This review was conducted to assist the busy dentist in keeping abreast of the latest scientific information regarding the clinical practice of dentistry. Each of the authors, who are considered experts in their disciplines, was asked to peruse the scientific literature in their discipline published in 2016 and review the articles for important information that may affect treatment decisions. Comments on experimental methodology, statistical evaluation, and the overall validity of conclusions are included with many of the reviews. The reviews are not meant to stand alone but are intended to inform the interested reader about what has been discovered in the past year. The readers are then invited to go to the source, if they want more detail.

Annual review of selected scientific literature: Report of the committee on scientific investigation of the American Academy of Restorative Dentistry.

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: It is clear the contemporary dentist is confronted with a blizzard of information regarding materials and techniques from journal articles, advertisements, newsletters, the internet, and continuing education events. While some of that information is sound and helpful, much of it is misleading at best. PURPOSE: This review identifies and discusses the most important scientific findings regarding outcomes of dental treatment to assist the practitioner in making evidence-based choices. This review was conducted to assist the busy dentist in keeping abreast of the latest scientific information regarding the clinical practice of dentistry. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Each of the authors, who are considered experts in their disciplines, was asked to peruse the scientific literature published in 2015 in their discipline and review the articles for important information that may have an impact on treatment decisions. Comments on experimental methodology, statistical evaluation, and overall validity of the conclusions are included in many of the reviews. RESULTS: The reviews are not meant to stand alone but are intended to inform the interested reader about what has been discovered in the past year. The readers are then invited to go to the source if they wish more detail. CONCLUSIONS: Analysis of the scientific literature published in 2015 is divided into 7 sections, dental materials, periodontics, prosthodontics, occlusion and temporomandibular disorders, sleep-disordered breathing, cariology, and implant dentistry.

Replacement of mandibular molars with single-unit restorations supported by wide-body implants: immediate versus delayed loading. A randomized controlled study.

PURPOSE: This prospective randomized controlled trial aimed to compare single implant-supported mandibular molar restorations using either an immediate or a delayed loading protocol. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty subjects requiring single mandibular molar replacement were consecutively treated. One implant was placed in each patient. Fifteen subjects were assigned to delayed loading protocol and 15 to immediate loading protocol according to a randomization table. After insertion, the delayed loaded implants were connected to a healing abutment and restored after 3 to 4 months of healing without loading. The immediately loaded implants were loaded within 24 hours of surgery with a provisional restoration. The interim prosthesis was placed in centric occlusion. All contacts in lateral excursions were eliminated. At implant placement the maximum value of insertion torque was recorded. Radiographic bone level change was measured on periapical radiographs obtained at the time of implant placement and 12 months after loading. Means of the 2 groups were compared by Student t test and analysis of variance (ANOVA). The level of significance was set at .05. RESULTS: No implants were lost in the delayed loading group (0/15), whereas 1 implant failed (1/15) in the immediate loading group. No differences were observed in relation to implant length or insertion torque between the groups. The average radiographic bone level change after 1 year of function was 1.2 +/- 0.55 mm (range, 0.5 to 2.6 mm) and 0.77 +/- 0.38 mm (range, 0.29 to 1.23 mm) for the delayed loaded and the immediately loaded implants, respectively. The difference in radiographic bone level change between the delayed and immediate loading groups was statistically significant (P = .022; CI = -0.79 to -0.06; Student t test). CONCLUSIONS: Immediate loading of wide-diameter implants supporting single restorations in mandibular molar sites seems to be a suitable clinical option. Moreover, the radiographic bone level change observed after 12 months of loading was significantly less for immediately loaded implants.

Immediate loading of two implants supporting a ball attachment-retained mandibular overdenture: a prospective clinical study.

BACKGROUND: A prospective clinical study was conducted to evaluate clinically and radiographically the performance of two implants immediately loaded supporting a ball attachment-retained mandibular overdenture. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Seventeen completely edentulous patients were included in the study. Each patient received two implants inserted after a minimal flap reflection and no vestibular extension in order to reduce the postoperative swelling and facilitate immediate prosthesis connection. After implant placement, a mandibular complete denture was connected to the implants using ball attachments of appropriate height according to the depth of the peri-implant tissue. Patients were asked not to remove the denture for 1 week. No limitations to chewing function were given. At implant placement, the maximum value of insertion torque was recorded. Patients were examined at 1, 2, 4, 12, and 52 weeks postsurgery. At postoperative visit, occlusion was checked and the need for any prosthesis maintenance was recorded. The radiographic bone level (RBL) change was measured on periapical radiographs at baseline and 12 months after loading. RESULTS: After 12 months of loading, no implant failure was reported and the survival rate was 100%. Average RBL change was 0.7 mm +/- 0.5 mm. Of the 17 cases, two had major prosthetic complications and five patients required minor extra maintenance appointments. CONCLUSIONS: The immediate loading of two implants by means of ball attachment-retained mandibular complete denture may be a predictable treatment option. This clinical approach offers increased stability and comfort, while keeping a high implant success rate.

Immediate loading of dental implants supporting fixed partial dentures in the posterior mandible: a randomized controlled split-mouth study--machined versus titanium oxide implant surface.

PURPOSE: A split-mouth study was conducted to compare dental implants with either machined or titanium oxide (TiO) surfaces immediately loaded with fixed partial dentures in the posterior mandible. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Ten patients with bilateral partial edentulism in the posterior mandible received 42 implants; 20 on the test (TiO) and 22 on the control (machined) side. The implants were loaded within 24 hours postsurgery. At implant placement the maximum insertion torque (IT) was recorded. Implant stability quotient (ISQ) was also evaluated at baseline (day 0) and 1, 2, 4, 12, 24, and 52 weeks following implant placement. The radiographic bone level (RBL) change was measured on periapical radiographs at baseline and 12 months after loading. Means for the 2 groups were compared by paired t test. RESULTS: The overall implant success rate was 95%. No implants were lost in the test group; 2 failed in the control group. The difference between the groups in RBL change after 1 year of function was not statistically significant (P = .224). However, average RBL change for machined implants in distal positions was significantly higher than for TiO surface implants in the same position (post-hoc comparison; P = .048). ISQ and peak IT values did not differ between the groups (P = .414 and P = .762, respectively). The high IT necessary to insert the implants did not seem to affect the RBL change (P = .203). CONCLUSIONS: No significant difference was observed between machined and TiO implant surface in terms of RBL change or ISQ, although TiO implants may provide a lower RBL change compared to machined implants when utilized in the distal position. Immediate loading of implants using fixed partial dentures in posterior mandible may be considered as a treatment option if implants are inserted with IT > or = 20 Ncm and ISQ > or = 60 into nonaugmented bone and loaded with light centric occlusal contact.

A 36-month randomized controlled split-mouth trial comparing immediately loaded titanium oxide-anodized and machined implants supporting fixed partial dentures in the posterior mandible.

PURPOSE: A single-blind randomized controlled split-mouth trial was performed to compare the 36-month outcomes of machined and titanium oxide-anodized (ADZ) dental implant surfaces immediately loaded with fixed partial dentures in the posterior mandible. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Ten patients with bilateral partial edentulism in the posterior mandible received 42 implants; 20 were placed on the test side (ADZ) and 22 were placed on the control (machined) side. The implants were loaded within 24 hours after placement. Changes in the radiographic bone level (RBL) were measured on standardized periapical films at baseline, 12 months, and 36 months. The mean changes in RBL were compared using a paired t test, and the mean changes in RBL with regard to implant position and implant surface type were compared via two-way analysis of variance. RESULTS: After 36 months of functional loading, the overall cumulative success rate for all implants was 95%. The mean change in RBL at 36 months was 0.35 mm and 0.32 mm for ADZ and machined implants, respectively (not statistically significantly different between groups; P = .88). A reduction in RBL was observed for both machined and ADZ implants between 12 and 36 months, but only the machined implants demonstrated a statistically significant decrease in RBL during the observation period. CONCLUSIONS: No statistically significant differences in RBL change were found between machined and ADZ implant surfaces after 36 months in function, and both surfaces demonstrated minimal marginal bone remodeling. As such, immediate loading of ADZ and machined dental implants supporting fixed partial dentures may be a suitable long-term treatment option in the posterior mandible.