ABSTRACT
Objectives The objective of this systematic review was to evaluate the success of endocrown restorations on molars in comparison with endocrown restorations on premolars.Registration number The methodology for this review is registered with the PROSPERO database (CRD42019149543).Data sources Medline, Embase, Dentistry & Oral Sciences Source and Cochrane CENTRAL were searched through January 2020, supplemented with hand searching of additional relevant journals.Data selection and data extraction Two independent reviewers screened studies against predefined inclusion criteria and extracted data.Data analysis Narrative analysis was carried out and random-effects meta-analysis was performed where possible.Results Out of the selected eight studies, reported success rate of endocrown restoration in molars varied from 72.73% to 99.57% and in premolars ranged from 68.75% to 100%, with a follow-up range of 3-19 years. The pooled odds ratio and 95% confidence intervals for failure rates in molars compared to premolars in four studies selected for meta-analysis were 1.096 (95% CI: 0.280, 4.292).Conclusions These findings showed similar success rates and no difference in the rate of endocrown failures between molars and premolars, thus suggesting that premolars may be considered suitable candidates for endocrowns. However, the findings should be interpreted with caution due to methodological limitations of the included studies. Further better quality and specifically designed controlled trials directly comparing the clinical performance of endocrowns on molars and premolars are required.
ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: To determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of cisplatin administered with piroxicam, the antitumor activity and toxicity of cisplatin combined with piroxicam in dogs with oral malignant melanoma (OMM) and oral squamous cell carcinoma (SCC), and the effects of piroxicam on the pharmacokinetics of cisplatin in dogs with tumors. DESIGN: Prospective nonrandomized clinical trial. ANIMALS: 25 dogs. PROCEDURE: Dogs were treated with a combination of cisplatin (escalating dose with 6 hours of diuresis with saline [0.9% NaCI] solution) and piroxicam (0.3 mg/kg 10.14 mg/lb], PO, q 24 h). The initial cisplatin dose (50 mg/m2) was increased by 5 mg/m2 until the MTD was reached. Tumor stage and size were determined at 6-week intervals during treatment. The pharmacokinetics of cisplatin were determined in dogs receiving a combination of cisplatin and piroxicam during the clinical trial and dogs that were treated with cisplatin alone. RESULTS: 11 dogs with OMM and 9 dogs with SCC were included in the clinical trial. The MTD of cisplatin when administered in combination with piroxicam was 50 mg/m2. Tumor remission occurred in 5 of 9 dogs with SCC and 2 of 11 dogs with OMM. The most common abnormality observed was renal toxicosis. Clearance of cisplatin in dogs that were treated with cisplatin alone was not significantly different from that in dogs treated with a combination of cisplatin and piroxicam. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Cisplatin administered in combination with piroxicam had antitumor activity against OMM and SCC. The level of toxicity was acceptable, although renal function must be monitored carefully.