Purpose To evaluate the current scientific evidence on patient recall and maintenance of implant‐supported restorations, to standardize patient care regimens and improve maintenance of oral health. An additional purpose was to examine areas of deficiency in the current scientific literature and provide recommendations for future studies. Materials and Methods An electronic search for articles in the English language literature from the past 10 years was performed independently by multiple investigators using a systematic search process. After application of predetermined inclusion and exclusion criteria, the final list of articles was reviewed to meet the objectives of this review. Results The initial electronic search resulted in 2816 titles. The systematic application of inclusion and exclusion criteria resulted in 14 articles that satisfied the study objectives. An additional 6 articles were added through a supplemental search process for a total of 20 studies. Of these, 11 were randomized controlled clinical trials, and 9 were observational studies. The majority of the studies (15 out of 20) were conducted in the past 5 years and most studies were conducted in Europe (15), followed by Asia (2), South America (1), the United States (1), and the Middle East (1). Results from the qualitative data on a combined 1088 patients indicated that outcome improvements in recall and maintenance regimen were related to (1) patient/treatment characteristic (type of prosthesis, type of prosthetic components, and type of restorative materials); (2) specific oral topical agents or oral hygiene aids (electric toothbrush, interdental brush, chlorhexidine, triclosan, water flossers) and (3) professional intervention (oral hygiene maintenance, and maintenance of the prosthesis). Conclusions There is minimal evidence related to recall regimens in patients with implant‐borne removable and fixed restorations; however, a considerable body of evidence indicates that patients with implant‐borne removable and fixed restorations require lifelong professional recall regimens to provide biological and mechanical maintenance, customized for each patient. Current evidence also demonstrates that the use of specific oral topical agents and oral hygiene aids can improve professional and at‐home maintenance of implant‐borne restorations. There is evidence to demonstrate differences in mechanical and biological maintenance needs due to differences in prosthetic materials and designs. Deficiencies in existing evidence compel the forethought of creating clinical practice guidelines for recall and maintenance of patients with implant‐borne dental restorations.

No abstract

Summary Objective The aim of this study was to evaluate and compare the amount of external apical root resorption (EARR) observed during the orthodontic treatment with pre-adjusted edgewise appliance (PEA) or clear aligner therapy (CAT) and with 2D or 3D radiographic methods of measuring the root resorption. Search strategy and selection criteria A search of PubMed MEDLINE, Scopus, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, LILACS, Web of Science, Dissertations & Theses Global, ClinicalTrials.gov registry, and the ISRCTN Registry was performed. Studies that have evaluated the amount of root resorption in non-extraction cases using CAT or PEA were selected for the systematic review. A meta-analysis was performed for the amount of root resorption of permanent maxillary incisors using PEA or CAT treatment modalities by either 2D or cone-beam computed tomography radiographic examination. Data collection and analysis Database research, elimination of duplicate studies, data extraction, and risk of bias were performed by authors independently and in duplication. A random-effect meta-analysis followed by subgroup comparisons were performed to evaluate EARR. Results A total of 16 studies (4 were prospective and 12 were retrospective) were identified for inclusion in the systematic review. The mean root resorption for the permanent maxillary incisors was in the range from 0.25 to 1.13 mm (overall: 0.49 mm; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.24 to 0.75 mm). The mean root resorption difference between CAT and PEA was statistically significant (P < 0.05) for 12 but not for 21, 11, or 22. Limitations One of the drawbacks is a lack of good quality prospective studies, specifically randomized clinical trials in the literature. Conclusions and implications Neither PEA or CAT technique leads to clinically significant root resorption (1 mm) of the maxillary incisors. The amount of EARR of maxillary incisors is not significant in comparing two treatment modalities (PEA and CAT), except for 12, where the PEA group has significantly more EARR when compared to CAT. Registration The protocol for this systematic review was based on the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions 5.1.0 and was registered at PROSPERO database (https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42018113051). This systematic review is reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement.

Purpose To evaluate the current scientific evidence on patient recall and maintenance of dental restorations on natural teeth, standardize patient care regimens, and improve maintenance of oral health. An additional purpose was to examine areas of deficiency in the current scientific literature and provide recommendations for future studies. Materials and Methods An electronic search for articles in the English language literature from the past 15 years was performed independently by multiple investigators using a systematic search process. After application of predetermined inclusion and exclusion criteria, the final list of articles was reviewed in depth to meet the objectives of this review. Results The initial electronic search resulted in 2161 titles. The systematic application of inclusion and exclusion criteria resulted in 12 articles that met the objectives of the study. An additional 4 articles were added through a supplemental search process for a total of 16 studies. Out of these, 9 were randomized controlled clinical trials and 7 were observational studies. The majority of the studies (14 out of 16) were conducted in the past 5 years, and most of the studies were conducted in Europe (10). Results from the qualitative data, on a combined 3569 patients, indicated that outcome improvements in recall and maintenance regimen were related to (1) patient/treatment characteristics (adherence to recall appointments, type of restoration and type of restorative material); (2) agent (chlorhexidine, fluoride, triclosan); and (3) professional interventions (repeated oral hygiene instruction, regular oral hygiene intervention). Conclusions There is minimal evidence related to recall regimens in patients with removable and fixed tooth‐borne restorations; however, there is considerable evidence indicating that patients with tooth‐borne removable and fixed restorations require lifelong dental professional maintenance to provide repeated oral hygiene instruction and regular oral hygiene intervention customized to each patient's treatment. Current evidence also indicates that use of specific oral topical agents like chlorhexidine, fluoride, and triclosan can aid in reducing risk for gingival inflammation, dental caries, and candidiasis. Therefore, these agents may aid in improvement of professional and at‐home maintenance of various tooth‐borne dental restorations. Furthermore, due to the heterogeneity of patient populations, restorations, and treatment needs, the evidence compels forethought of creating clinical practice guidelines for recall and maintenance of patients with tooth‐borne dental restorations.

No abstract