Impact of the superimposition methods and the designated comparison area on accuracy analyses in dentate models.

OBJECTIVES: To measure the impact of superimposition methods and the designated comparison area on accuracy analyses of dentate models using an ISO-recommended 3-dimensional (3D) metrology-grade inspection software (Geomagic Control X; 3D Systems; Rock Hill, South Carolina; USA). MATERIALS AND METHODS: A dentate maxillary typodont scanned with a desktop scanner (E4; 3 Shape; Copenhagen; Denmark) and an intraoral scanner (Trios 4; 3 Shape; Copenhagen; Denmark) was used as reference. Eight groups were created based on the core features of each superimposition method: landmark-based alignment (G1); partial area-based alignment (G2); entire tooth area-based alignment (G3); double alignment combining landmark-based alignment with entire tooth area-based alignment (G4); double alignment combining partial area-based alignment with entire tooth area-based alignment (G5); initial automated quick pre-alignment (G6); initial automated precise pre-alignment (G7); and entire model area-based alignment (G8). Diverse variations of each alignment and two regions for accuracy analyses (teeth surface or full model surface) were tested, resulting in a total of thirty-two subgroups (n = 18). The alignment accuracy between experimental and reference meshes was quantified using root mean square (RMS) error as trueness and its repeatability as precision. The descriptive statistics, a factorial repeated measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) and a post hoc Tuckey multiple comparison tests were used to analyze the trueness, and precision (α = 0.05). RESULTS: A total of 576 superimpositions were performed. The unique partial area-based superimposition method demonstrated the least precise alignment and was the sole group to exhibit a significant difference (p<.001). Automated initial pre-alignments demonstrated similar accuracy to other superimposition methods (p>.05). Double alignments did not result in accuracy improvement (p>.05). The designated comparison area displayed differences in both trueness (p<.001) and precision (p<.001), leading to an overall discrepancy of 8 ± 4 µm between selecting the teeth surface or full model surface. CONCLUSIONS: The superimposition method choice within the tested software did not impact accuracy analyses, except when the alignment relies on a unique and reduced area, such as the palatal rugae, a single tooth, or three adjacent teeth on one side. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: The superimposition method choice within the tested ISO-recommended 3D inspection software did not impact accuracy analyses.

Retention procedures for stabilising tooth position after treatment with orthodontic braces.

BACKGROUND: Without a phase of retention after successful orthodontic treatment, teeth tend to 'relapse', that is, to return to their initial position. Retention is achieved by fitting fixed or removable retainers to provide stability to the teeth while avoiding damage to teeth and gums. Removable retainers can be worn full- or part-time. Retainers vary in shape, material, and the way they are made. Adjunctive procedures are sometimes used to try to improve retention, for example, reshaping teeth where they contact ('interproximal reduction'), or cutting fibres around teeth ('percision'). This review is an update of one originally published in 2004 and last updated in 2016. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effects of different retainers and retention strategies used to stabilise tooth position after orthodontic braces. SEARCH METHODS: An information specialist searched Cochrane Oral Health Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and OpenGrey up to 27 April 2022 and used additional search methods to identify published, unpublished and ongoing studies.  SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) involving children and adults who had retainers fitted or adjunctive procedures undertaken to prevent relapse following orthodontic treatment with braces. We excluded studies with aligners. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently screened eligible studies, assessed risk of bias and extracted data. Outcomes were stability or relapse of tooth position, retainer failure (i.e. broken, detached, worn out, ill-fitting or lost), adverse effects on teeth and gums (i.e. plaque, gingival and bleeding indices), and participant satisfaction. We calculated mean differences (MD) for continuous data, risk ratios (RR) or risk differences (RD) for dichotomous data, and hazard ratios (HR) for survival data, all with 95% confidence intervals (CI). We conducted meta-analyses when similar studies reported outcomes at the same time point; otherwise results were reported as mean ranges. We prioritised reporting of Little's Irregularity Index (crookedness of anterior teeth) to measure relapse, judging the minimum important difference to be 1 mm. MAIN RESULTS: We included 47 studies, with 4377 participants. The studies evaluated: removable versus fixed retainers (8 studies); different types of fixed retainers (22 studies) or bonding materials (3 studies); and different types of removable retainers (16 studies). Four studies evaluated more than one comparison. We judged 28 studies to have high risk of bias, 11 to have low risk, and eight studies as unclear.  We focused on 12-month follow-up.  The evidence is low or very low certainty. Most comparisons and outcomes were evaluated in only one study at high risk of bias, and most studies measured outcomes after less than a year. Removable versus fixed retainers Removable (part-time) versus fixed   One study reported that participants wearing clear plastic retainers part-time in the lower arch had more relapse than participants with multistrand fixed retainers, but the amount was not clinically significant (Little's Irregularity Index (LII) MD 0.92 mm, 95% CI 0.23 to 1.61; 56 participants). Removable retainers were more likely to cause discomfort (RR 12.22; 95% CI 1.69 to 88.52; 57 participants), but were associated with less retainer failure (RR 0.44, 95% CI 0.20 to 0.98; 57 participants) and better periodontal health (Gingival Index (GI) MD -0.34, 95% CI -0.66 to -0.02; 59 participants). Removable (full-time) versus fixed   One study reported that removable clear plastic retainers worn full-time in the lower arch did not provide any clinically significant benefit for tooth stability over fixed retainers (LII MD 0.60 mm, 95% CI 0.17 to 1.03; 84 participants). Participants with clear plastic retainers had better periodontal health (gingival bleeding RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.88; 84 participants), but higher risk of retainer failure (RR 3.42, 95% CI 1.38 to 8.47; 77 participants). The study found no difference between retainers for caries.  Different types of fixed retainers Computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing (CAD/CAM) nitinol versus conventional/analogue multistrand One study reported that CAD/CAM nitinol fixed retainers were better for tooth stability, but the difference was not clinically significant (LII MD -0.46 mm, 95% CI -0.72 to -0.21; 66 participants). There was no evidence of a difference between retainers for periodontal health (GI MD 0.00, 95% CI -0.16 to 0.16; 2 studies, 107 participants), or retainer survival (RR 1.29, 95% CI 0.67 to 2.49; 1 study, 41 participants). Fibre-reinforced composite versus conventional multistrand/spiral wire  One study reported that fibre-reinforced composite fixed retainers provided better stability than multistrand retainers, but this was not of a clinically significant amount (LII MD -0.70 mm, 95% CI -1.17 to -0.23; 52 participants). The fibre-reinforced retainers had better patient satisfaction with aesthetics (MD 1.49 cm on a visual analogue scale, 95% CI 0.76 to 2.22; 1 study, 32 participants), and similar retainer survival rates (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.21; 7 studies; 1337 participants) at 12 months. However, failures occurred earlier (MD -1.48 months, 95% CI -1.88 to -1.08; 2 studies, 103 participants; 24-month follow-up) and more gingival inflammation at six months, though bleeding on probing (BoP) was similar (GI MD 0.59, 95% CI 0.13 to 1.05; BoP MD 0.33, 95% CI -0.13 to 0.79; 1 study, 40 participants). Different types of removable retainers Clear plastic versus Hawley When worn in the lower arch for six months full-time and six months part-time, clear plastic provided similar stability to Hawley retainers (LII MD 0.01 mm, 95% CI -0.65 to 0.67; 1 study, 30 participants). Hawley retainers had lower risk of failure (RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.83; 1 study, 111 participants), but were less comfortable at six months (VAS MD -1.86 cm, 95% CI -2.19 to -1.53; 1 study, 86 participants). Part-time versus full-time wear of Hawley There was no evidence of a difference in stability between part-time and full-time use of Hawley retainers (MD 0.20 mm, 95% CI -0.28 to 0.68; 1 study, 52 participants). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The evidence is low to very low certainty, so we cannot draw firm conclusions about any one approach to retention over another. More high-quality studies are needed that measure tooth stability over at least two years, and measure how long retainers last, patient satisfaction and negative side effects from wearing retainers, such as tooth decay and gum disease.

ANTECEDENTES: Sin una fase de retención tras un tratamiento de ortodoncia exitoso, los dientes tienden a "recaer", es decir, a volver a su posición inicial. La retención se consigue colocando retenedores fijos o removibles para proporcionar estabilidad a los dientes y evitar al mismo tiempo daños en dientes y encías. Los retenedores removibles pueden llevarse a tiempo completo o parcial. Los retenedores varían en la forma, el material y el modo de fabricación. A veces se utilizan procedimientos complementarios para intentar mejorar la retención, por ejemplo, remodelando los dientes en la zona de contacto ("reducción interproximal") o cortando fibras alrededor de los dientes ("pericisión"). Esta revisión es una actualización de una publicada originalmente en 2004 y actualizada por última vez en 2016. OBJETIVOS: Evaluar los efectos de los diferentes retenedores y estrategias de retención utilizados para estabilizar la posición de los dientes después del tratamiento con aparatos de ortodoncia. MÉTODOS DE BÚSQUEDA: Un documentalista realizó búsquedas en el Registro de ensayos del Grupo Cochrane de Salud oral (Cochrane Oral Health), en CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase y OpenGrey hasta el 27 de abril de 2022 y utilizó métodos de búsqueda adicionales para identificar estudios publicados, no publicados y en curso. CRITERIOS DE SELECCIÓN: Ensayos controlados aleatorizados (ECA) con niños y adultos a los que se les colocaron retenedores o se les realizaron procedimientos complementarios para prevenir la recaída tras el tratamiento con aparatos de ortodoncia. Se excluyeron los estudios con alineadores. OBTENCIÓN Y ANÁLISIS DE LOS DATOS: Dos autores de la revisión realizaron de forma independiente la revisión de los estudios elegibles, evaluaron el riesgo de sesgo y extrajeron los datos. Los desenlaces fueron la estabilidad o recaída de la posición dental, el fracaso del retenedor (es decir, roto, desprendido, desgastado, mal ajustado o perdido), los efectos adversos en dientes y encías (es decir, índices de placa, gingivales y de sangrado) y la satisfacción de los participantes. Se calcularon las diferencias de medias (DM) para los datos continuos, las razones de riesgos (RR) o las diferencias de riesgos (DR) para los datos dicotómicos, y los cociente de riesgos instantáneos (CRI) para los datos de supervivencia, todos ellos con intervalos de confianza (IC) del 95%. Se realizaron metanálisis cuando estudios similares informaron desenlaces en el mismo punto temporal; de lo contrario, los resultados se informaron como rangos medios. Se dio prioridad a la notificación del Little's Irregularity Index (torcedura de los dientes anteriores) para medir la recaída, considerando que la diferencia mínima importante era de 1 mm. RESULTADOS PRINCIPALES: Se incluyeron 47 estudios con 4377 participantes. Los estudios evaluaron: retenedores removibles versus fijos (ocho estudios); diferentes tipos de retenedores fijos (22 estudios) o materiales adhesivos (tres estudios); y diferentes tipos de retenedores removibles (16 estudios). Cuatro estudios evaluaron más de una comparación. Se consideró que 28 estudios tenían un alto riesgo de sesgo, 11 un riesgo bajo y en ocho estudios fue incierto. El centro de atención de esta revisión fue el seguimiento a los 12 meses. La evidencia es de certeza baja a muy baja. La mayoría de las comparaciones y los desenlaces se evaluaron en un solo estudio con alto riesgo de sesgo, y la mayoría de los estudios midieron los desenlaces después de menos de un año. Retenedores removibles versus fijos Removible (a tiempo parcial) versus fijo Un estudio informó que los participantes que llevaban retenedores de plástico transparente a tiempo parcial en la arcada inferior presentaron más recaídas que los participantes con retenedores fijos de múltiples barras, pero la cantidad no fue clínicamente significativa (Little's Irregularity Index [IIL] DM 0,92 mm; IC del 95%: 0,23 a 1,61; 56 participantes). Los retenedores removibles tuvieron más probabilidades de causar molestias (RR 12,22; IC del 95%: 1,69 a 88,52; 57 participantes), pero se asociaron con menos fracaso del retenedor (RR 0,44; IC del 95%: 0,20 a 0,98; 57 participantes) y mejor salud periodontal (Gingival Index [IG] DM ­0,34; IC del 95%: ­0,66 a ­0,02; 59 participantes). Removible (a tiempo completo) versus fijo Un estudio informó que los retenedores removibles de plástico transparente utilizados a tiempo completo en la arcada inferior no proporcionaron efectos beneficiosos clínicamente significativos en la estabilidad dental en comparación con los retenedores fijos (LII DM 0,60 mm; IC del 95%: 0,17 a 1,03; 84 participantes). Los participantes con retenedores de plástico transparente tenían mejor salud periodontal (sangrado gingival RR 0,53; IC del 95%: 0,31 a 0,88; 84 participantes), pero mayor riesgo de fracaso del retenedor (RR 3,42; IC del 95%: 1,38 a 8,47; 77 participantes). El estudio no encontró diferencias entre los retenedores en las caries. Diferentes tipos de retenedores fijos De nitinol con diseño asistido por ordenador/fabricación asistida por ordenador (DAO/FAO) versus de múltiples barras convencional/analógico Un estudio informó que los retenedores fijos de nitinol con DAO/FAO fueron mejores para la estabilidad dental, pero la diferencia no fue clínicamente significativa (LII DM ­0,46 mm; IC del 95%: ­0,72 a ­0,21; 66 participantes). No hubo evidencia de una diferencia entre los retenedores en la salud periodontal (GI MD 0,00; IC del 95%: ­0,16 a 0,16; dos estudios, 107 participantes) ni en la supervivencia del retenedor (RR 1,29; IC del 95%: 0,67 a 2,49; un estudio, 41 participantes). Composite reforzado con fibra versus alambre de múltiples barras/en espiral convencional Un estudio informó que los retenedores fijos de composite reforzado con fibra proporcionaron una mayor estabilidad que los retenedores de múltiples barras, pero no fue clínicamente significativa (LII DM ­0,70 mm; IC del 95%: ­1,17 a ­0,23; 52 participantes). Los retenedores reforzados con fibra tuvieron una mejor satisfacción del paciente con respecto a la estética (DM 1,49 cm en una escala visual analógica; IC del 95%: 0,76 a 2,22; un estudio, 32 participantes) y tasas similares de supervivencia del retenedor (RR 1,01, IC del 95%: 0,84 a 1,21; siete estudios; 1337 participantes) a los 12 meses. Sin embargo, los fracasos se produjeron antes (DM ­1,48 meses; IC del 95%: ­1,88 a ­1,08; dos estudios, 103 participantes; seguimiento de 24 meses) y más inflamación gingival a los seis meses, aunque el sangrado al sondaje (SS) fue similar (GI DM 0,59; IC del 95%: 0,13 a 1,05; SS DM 0,33; IC del 95%: ­0,13 a 0,79; un estudio, 40 participantes). Diferentes tipos de retenedores removibles Plástico transparente versus Hawley Cuando se llevó en la arcada inferior durante seis meses a tiempo completo y seis meses a tiempo parcial, el plástico transparente proporcionó una estabilidad similar a los retenedores Hawley (LII DM 0,01 mm; IC del 95%: ­0,65 a 0,67; un estudio, 30 participantes). Los retenedores Hawley tuvieron un menor riesgo de fracaso (RR 0,60; IC del 95%: 0,43 a 0,83; un estudio, 111 participantes), pero resultaron menos cómodos a los seis meses (EVA DM ­1,86 cm; IC del 95%: ­2,19 a ­1,53; un estudio, 86 participantes). Hawley a tiempo parcial versus a tiempo completo No hubo evidencia de una diferencia en la estabilidad entre el uso a tiempo parcial y a tiempo completo de los retenedores Hawley (DM 0,20 mm; IC del 95%: ­0,28 a 0,68; un estudio, 52 participantes). CONCLUSIONES DE LOS AUTORES: La evidencia es de certeza baja a muy baja, por lo que no fue posible establecer conclusiones firmes sobre un método de retención en detrimento de otro. Se necesitan más estudios de alta calidad que midan la estabilidad de los dientes durante al menos dos años, así como la duración de los retenedores, la satisfacción de los pacientes y los efectos secundarios negativos del uso de retenedores, como caries y enfermedades de las encías.

The efficacy of implant surface decontamination using chemicals during surgical treatment of peri-implantitis: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

AIM: To answer the following PICOS question: "In adult patients with peri-implantitis, what is the efficacy of surgical therapy with chemical surface decontamination of implant surfaces in comparison with surgical therapy alone or surgery with placebo decontamination, on probing pocket depth (PD) reduction and bleeding on probing (BoP)/suppuration on probing (SoP), in randomized controlled clinical trials (RCTs) and non-RCTs with at least 6 months of follow-up?" MATERIALS AND METHODS: Six databases were searched from their inception up to 20 May 2022. Data on clinical outcome variables were pooled and analysed using mean differences (MDs), risk ratios (RRs), or risk differences (RDs) as appropriate, 95% confidence intervals (CIs), and prediction intervals (PIs) in the case of significant heterogeneity. Primary outcomes were determined as changes in PD and BoP/SoP. Secondary outcomes were radiographic marginal bone loss (MBL), implant loss, and disease resolution. PROSPERO registration number: CRD42022325603. RESULTS: Six RCTs-two with moderate, three with high, and one with low risk of bias (RoB)-were included. These studies test the adjunctive effect of photodynamic therapy (PDT), chlorhexidine (CHX), and administration of local antibiotics (LAbs) during surgery on the clinical outcome. In a single 12-month study, the adjunctive use of local antibiotics showed a clinically relevant reduction of PD [MD = 1.44; 95%CI (0.40 to -2.48)] and MBL [MD = 1.21; 95%CI (0.44-1.98); one trial, 32 participants]. PDT showed a small but significant reduction in BoP [MD = 7.41%; 95%CI (0.81-14.00); p = 0.028; two trials; 42 participants]. Treatment with CHX resulted in no significant changes in PD, BoP, or MBL compared to placebo (saline solution). None of the interventions affected disease resolution and implant loss. Certainty of the evidence was very low for all outcome measures assessed. CONCLUSIONS: Within the limitations of this systematic review and the meta-analysis, adjunctive use of chemicals such as PDT, CHX, and LAbs for surface decontamination during surgery of peri-implantitis cannot be recommended as superior to standard debridement procedures (mechanical debridement with or without saline).

Outcome measurements and quality of randomized controlled clinical trials of tooth-supported fixed dental prostheses: A systematic review and qualitative analysis.

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: The lack of consensus regarding a standardized set of outcome measurements and noncompliance with current reporting guidelines in clinical trials of tooth-supported fixed dental prostheses (FDPs) hamper interstudy comparability, compromise scientific evidence, and waste research effort and resources in prosthetic dentistry. PURPOSE: The primary objective of this systematic review was to identify all primary and secondary outcome measurements assessed in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of tooth-supported FDPs. Secondary objectives were to assess their methodological quality by using the Cochrane Collaboration's risk of bias tool (RoB, v2.0) and their reporting quality by means of a standardized 16-item CONSORT assessment tool through published reports. MATERIAL AND METHODS: An electronic search was conducted in MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane library to identify all RCT-related articles published in the past 10 years. Differences in RoB were tested with the Pearson chi-square test, and those in CONSORT score with the Student t test. RESULTS: A total of 64 RCTs from 79 publications were deemed eligible. The diversity of outcome measures used in the field is apparent. Twenty percent of the included studies had a low RoB, 79% showed some concerns, and 1% had a high RoB. The mean ±standard deviation CONSORT compliance score was 22.56 ±3.17. Trials adhered to the CONSORT statement reported lower RoB than those that did not adhere (P<.001). RCTs with a low RoB reported more comprehensive adherence to CONSORT guidelines than those with some concerns (MD 4 [95% CI 1.52-6.48]; P=.004). CONCLUSIONS: A standardized core outcome reporting set in clinical research on tooth-supported FDPs remains evident. Adherence to the CONSORT statement continues to be low, with some RoB concerns that can be improved.

Intraoral Digital Scans for Fabricating Tooth-Supported Prostheses Using a Custom Intraoral Scan Body.

This article describes a technique to assist with intraoral digital scans for fabricating tooth-supported prostheses by using a custom intraoral scan body when the extension of the scan or the clinical characteristics might compromise the reliability of the intraoral digital scan. A preliminary intraoral scan of the tooth preparations is used to design a custom intraoral scan body which is manufactured using polymethylmethacrylate and a 5-axis milling machine. A low-viscosity polyvinyl siloxane impression of the tooth preparations is obtained using the custom intraoral scan body. Subsequently, the custom intraoral scan body is digitized using an intraoral scanner. A design software program is used to align the digitized custom intraoral scan body with the preliminary intraoral scan to obtain the definitive virtual cast. This technique aims to reduce manual conventional laboratory procedures such as pouring dental impression or die trimming which might minimize inaccuracies on the virtual definitive cast.

Medication-related osteonecrosis of the jaws (MRONJ) in cancer patients treated with denosumab VS. zoledronic acid: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND: The aim of the present study was to analyse the incidence, risk ratio (RR) and prognoses of two types of medication-related osteonecrosis of the jaws (MRONJ): denosumab-related osteonecrosis of the jaws (DRONJ) and Bisphosphonate-Related Osteonecrosis of the Jaws (BRONJ) in cancer patients under treatment with deno-sumab or zoledronic acid (ZA). MATERIAL AND METHODS: An electronic and manual search was conducted for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) until May 2019. Assessment of the identified studies, risk of bias and data extraction were performed independently by two reviewers. The incidence of DRONJ and BRONJ and the RR to develop MRONJ were calculated at 1 year, 2 years and 3 years of exposure. It was also calculated the odds ratio (OR) of their respective prognoses. They were calculated normalizing the values of the individual studies to 1 year, 2 years or 3 years when necessary through robust regression models using a statistical program. RESULTS: From 1.277 references identified, 8 RCTs were included, which comprised a total of 13.857 patients with a variety of neoplasms. The incidence of DRONJ in cancer patients under treatment with denosumab ranged from 0.5 to 2.1% after 1 year, 1.1 to 3.0% after 2 years, and 1.3 to 3.2% after 3 years of exposure. The incidence of BRONJ in cancer patients under treatment with ZA ranged from 0.4 to 1.6% after 1 year of exposure, 0.8 to 2.1% after 2 years, and 1.0 to 2.3% after 3 years of exposure. Statistically significant differences were found between de-nosumab and ZA in the risk of developing MRONJ after 1, 2 and 3 years of exposure. Nevertheless, there were no significant differences in terms of patient prognosis. CONCLUSIONS: Denosumab is associated with a significantly higher risk of developing MRONJ compared to ZA. Nevertheless, no differences were found in its prognoses

No disponible

Zirconia-ceramic versus metal-ceramic posterior multiunit tooth-supported fixed dental prostheses: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: The authors aimed to compare the survival and complication rates of zirconia-ceramic (ZC) versus metal-ceramic (MC) restorative material in multiunit tooth-supported posterior fixed dental prostheses (FDP). TYPES OF STUDIES REVIEWED: The authors conducted a systematic search of randomized controlled trials (RCTs), with no time or language restrictions, up to May 2019 using the MEDLINE (PubMed), Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases, followed by a manual search. RESULTS: The authors included 7 RCTs in the review and 5 RCTs in the meta-analysis. All studies had a low risk of bias. The authors included 330 participants (177 ZC and 173 MC tooth-supported FDP) in the meta-analysis, which revealed a medium-term survival rate of 95.4% (95% confidence interval [CI], 90.5% to 99.1%) for ZC FDP compared with 96.9% (95% CI, 94.3% to 99.4%) for MC FDP, with no significant differences (P = .364). The biological or technical complications did not show statistically significant differences, except in the global ceramic veneering chipping analysis (P = .023; risk difference [RD], 22.3%; 95% CI, 3.0% to 41.6%) and their subanalysis: minor chipping or chipping that can be solved with polishing (P = .044; RD, 19.5%; 95% CI, 0.5% to 38.4%), and major chipping or chipping that needs repair in the laboratory (P = .023; RD, 6.0%; 95% CI, 0.8% to 11.3%). CONCLUSIONS AND PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: Posterior multiunit ZC restorations are considered a predictable treatment in the medium term, although they are slightly more susceptible to chipping of the veneering ceramic than MC restorations.