No abstract

Statement of the Problem. Various direct and prosthetic restorations are clinically used to restore endodontically treated teeth. However, determining the most successful and reliable treatment to restore endodontically treated teeth is affected by numerous elements and still unclear for most clinicians. Therefore, this umbrella review study assessed the systematic/meta-analytic reviews (S/M-R) regarding the success rate of prosthetic restorations in endodontically treated teeth. Materials and Methods. The electronic search was conducted in the MEDLINE/PubMed, Cochrane, and Google Scholar databases until November 2020, regardless of language limitations. The inclusion criterion was as follows: S/M-R regarding prosthetic restorations in endodontically treated teeth. Three qualified researchers evaluated the inclusion criteria and bias risk. The fourth investigator was referred to when facing any doubtfulness. Results. From 43 achieved S/M-R, 14 studies were selected for this inquiry. Primary extracted information included success rate, survival rate, and postendodontic failure rate. Five S/M-R had a moderate risk of bias, and nine S/M-R had a low risk of bias and were considered strong clinical evidence in this examination. According to the low-risk reports, the success rate of fiber posts was higher than that of metal posts; the rate of root fracture in metallic and fiber posts was alike; the failure rate for fiber posts was comparable to fixed partial dentures or single crowns; the construction of endocrowns was likely to perform better than intracanal posts, composite resin, or inlay/onlay restorations. Conclusion. It appears that with practice and experience, deciding which type of restoration to choose changes. In dental restorations associated with root canal therapy, the single crowns are likely to be a proper option. Nevertheless, due to the heterogeneity of the studies, more clinical assessments are required to achieve more specific findings in this field.

Objective Opening of a healing abutment in two-stage implant systems is usually followed by a bad smell. Previous studies have found that presence of bacteria in microleakages of the implant-abutment interface results in further malodor. However, studies focusing on preventive treatments for this issue are scarce. Therefore, the aim of this study is to evaluate the effectiveness of two antimicrobial agents on prevention of malodor followed by opening the healing abutments. Materials and Methods Current double-blinded randomized clinical trial was performed on 51 eligible patients who were referred for their exposure surgery. They were divided equally into three parallel groups. In two groups, either chlorhexidine or tetracycline was added to the internal surface of the fixtures before screwing the healing abutments. One group did not receive any intervention. Three to 4 weeks later malodor was scored by sniffing the healing abutments immediately after uncovering them (odorless = 0/odor = 1). The three groups were then compared regarding malodor scores. Results Our findings showed that malodor was more frequent in the control group (58.82%) in comparison with groups of intervention (17.65 and 23.53%). There was a statistically significant difference between malodor in patients in whom antimicrobial agents (chlorhexidine and tetracycline) were used in their implants and the control group (p-value = 0.023). However, malodor in the chlorhexidine group and tetracycline group did not show any significant difference (p-value = 1). Conclusion Based upon the data from this study, it appears that local antimicrobial agents including chlorhexidine and tetracycline result in less malodor production within the implant-abutment interface. Clinical Significance A specific type of malodor is commonly seen after opening the healing abutment of a two-stage dental implant. Not only this issue is noticed by the dentist, but also annoyed the patient. Using local antimicrobial agents in the fixtures is likely to be a simple, easily applicable solution that satisfies both patients and dentists, and eliminates the possibility of further inflammation.

Contact loss between the implant prosthesis and adjacent natural teeth is a clinical complication whose overall prevalence is uncertain. Therefore, the main purpose of this umbrella study was to evaluate the extent of contact loss between implant prostheses and adjacent natural teeth. Electronic database of MEDLINE/PubMed, Cochrane, and Google Scholar was searched until August 2021 without considering language restrictions and according to Preferred Report Items for Systematic and Meta-Analysis guidelines (preferential reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis). Inclusion criteria were systematic/meta-analysis review articles related to contact loss between implant prostheses and adjacent natural teeth. Inclusion criteria and risk of bias for the selected systematic/meta-analysis review studies were assessed by two or three qualified researchers, and the fourth researcher was used to resolve the ambiguities. From 43 eligible articles, five systematic/meta-analysis review studies were selected for this study. Important information such as the range of contact points, the prevalence, and the location of the contact loss was extracted. Three research studies had a low risk of bias and were considered clinical evidence. Analysis of low-risk studies showed that the superiority of open contact loss was excessive. Prevalence of proximal contact loss was more in mesial contact, especially in the mandibular arch. No significant differences were reported in sex or between the posterior and anterior regions.