Impact of endodontic post material on longitudinal changes in interproximal bone level: a randomized controlled pilot trial.

OBJECTIVES: Aim was to evaluate the impact of glass fiber versus titanium endodontic posts on the interproximal bone level around severely damaged endodontically treated teeth. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty-eight participants of a randomized controlled trial on glass fiber (n = 18) and titanium post-endodontic restorations (n = 20) received radiographs at two different times after post placement (T0 = <12 months and T1 = 36-72 months after post placement). A total of 76 radiographs were analyzed with an image-editing software. Medians of changes in mesial and distal interproximal bone level (∆MBL, ∆DBL) were calculated and tested for statistical significance with respect to post material using Mann-Whitney U test (p < 0.05). Impact of post material on bone level changes was assessed in multilevel mixed-effect linear regression models. RESULTS: The mean observation period was 54 months for glass fiber and 50 months for titanium posts. Interproximal bone loss was small in both groups during the study period with no significant differences between groups (glass-fiber group, ∆MBL = - 0.03 mm and ∆DBL = - 0.06 mm; titanium group, ∆MBL = - 0.07 mm and ∆DBL = - 0.17 mm; both p > 0.05). Overall, impact of post material on bone loss was almost negligible with a nonsignificant difference between materials of 0.10 mm during the entire study period. CONCLUSION: The rigidity of endodontic post material has no impact on the level of alveolar bone support of severely damaged endodontically treated teeth. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Post-endodontic restorations of severely damaged teeth can achieve steady levels of periodontal bone support as a parameter of periodontal health, irrespective of post material.

Masking ability of bi- and tri- laminate all-ceramic veneers on tooth-colored ceramic discs.

STATEMENT: A predictable esthetic outcome is imperative when placing ceramic veneers. Discolored teeth pose a major challenge as sufficient material thickness is required to achieve a good esthetic result. There is limited evidence in the literature that compares the masking ability of multi-laminate veneers. PURPOSE: The aim of this in-vitro study was to compare the masking ability of bi-laminate (BL) and tri-laminate (TL) all-ceramic veneers cemented on tooth-colored ceramic discs. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 40 veneers (shade A1, 10-mm diameter, 0.8-mm thick) were manufactured-20 BL veneers (0.4-mm pressable ceramic coping veneered with 0.4-mm thick enamel layer) and 20 TL veneers (0.4-mm coping veneered with 0.2-mm thick opaque interlayer and 0.2-mm thick enamel layer). A bonding apparatus was utilized to adhesively cement all veneers on the ceramic discs (shade A1), simulating teeth of light and dark color. The resulting groups (N = 10 each) were the reference groups (shade A1 ceramic base) BL-1 and TL-1 veneers, and the test groups (shade A4 ceramic base) BL-4 and TL-4 veneers. The color of the cemented veneers was measured using a spectrophotometer. The data were converted to CIE L*a*b* coordinates, and ΔE* were calculated to allow for statistical analysis. RESULTS: The color differences between the samples with the A1 and A4 ceramic bases were significantly lower when covered with TL veneers (mean ΔE*: 3.2 units) than with BL veneers (mean ΔE*: 4.0 units: p < 0.001), indicating a better masking ability of the TL veneers. CONCLUSION: The 0.8-mm thick TL veneer was able to mask darker tooth-colored ceramic disc within clinically acceptable limits. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Increased understanding of the masking ability of ceramics and of color science is necessary in these esthetically aware times. Providing tri-laminate veneers for darker colored teeth seems to result in more predictable esthetical results than when using bi-laminate veneers. Patients with discolored/darker teeth may benefit from a more predictable esthetic result when teeth restored with tri-laminate rather than bi-laminate veneers.

Survival rates and complication behaviour of tooth implant-supported, fixed dental prostheses: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the survival and complication rates of tooth-implant supported fixed dental prostheses (T-I FDPs). SOURCES: An electronic search in MEDLINE/PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Embase was conducted using MeSH terms to identify randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or prospective studies with an observation period of at least 3 years, including at least 10 participants. STUDY SELECTION: Included studies were qualitatively assessed. Survival rates of T-I FDPs and implants as well as technical and biological complications were obtained. Failure and complication rates were pooled by weighting each rate in inverse proportion to its variance. DATA: A total of eight studies were considered for qualitative analysis; seven studies with a minimum follow-up of five years were included for quantitative analysis. Estimated survival rates of T-I FDPs were 90.8% (95% CI: 86.4-93.8%) after five years and 82.5% (95% CI: 74.7-88.0%) after 10 years. Implant survival estimates were 94.8% (90.9-97.0%) and 89.8% (82.7-99.4%) after 5 and 10 years, respectively. From a total of 185 T-I FDPs, 21 (11.4%) minor and 23 (12.4%) major biological complications were observed, whereas 23 (12.4%) minor and three (1.6%) major technical complications occurred. CONCLUSIONS: Due to the lack of well-designed studies exceeding a 10-year follow-up, prognosis for the long -term can hardly be given. Considering the inclusion criteria of this systematic review, T-I FDP-supported fixed dental prostheses show acceptable survival rates after five and 10 years. Rigidly constructed T-I FDPs should be preferred. With regard to the available data, these conclusions are valid only for three- to four-unit T-I FDPs. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Tooth-implant supported fixed dental prostheses are a recommendable treatment option in partial dentition. Based on the current literature, they should be rigidly constructed with a maximum number of four units.

Single dental implant retained mandibular complete dentures--influence of the loading protocol: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Over the years, there has been a strong consensus in dentistry that at least two implants are required to retain a complete mandibular denture. It has been shown in several clinical trials that one single median implant can retain a mandibular overdenture sufficiently well for up to 5 years without implant failures, when delayed loading was used. However, other trials have reported conflicting results with in part considerable failure rates when immediate loading was applied. Therefore it is the purpose of the current randomized clinical trial to test the hypothesis that immediate loading of a single mandibular midline implant with an overdenture will result in a comparable clinical outcome as using the standard protocol of delayed loading. METHODS/DESIGN: This prospective nine-center randomized controlled clinical trial is still ongoing. The final patient will complete the trial in 2016. In total, 180 edentulous patients between 60 and 89 years with sufficient complete dentures will receive one median implant in the edentulous mandible, which will retain the existing complete denture using a ball attachment. Loading of the median implant is either immediately after implant placement (experimental group) or delayed by 3 months of submerged healing at second-stage surgery (control group). Follow-up of patients will be performed for 24 months after implant loading. The primary outcome measure is non-inferiority of implant success rate of the experimental group compared to the control group. The secondary outcome measures encompass clinical, technical and subjective variables. The study was funded by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (German research foundation, KE 477/8-1). DISCUSSION: This multi-center clinical trial will give information on the ability of a single median implant to retain a complete mandibular denture when immediately loaded. If viable, this treatment option will strongly improve everyday dental practice. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The trial has been registered at Deutsches Register Klinischer Studien (German register of clinical trials) under DRKS-ID: DRKS00003730 since 23 August 2012. (http://www.germanctr.de).