Annual review of selected scientific literature: Report of the Committee on Scientific Investigation of the American Academy of Restorative Dentistry

Donovan, Terence E.; Marzola, Riccardo; Becker, William; Cagna, David R.; Eichmiller, Frederick C.; McKee, James R.; Metz, James E.; Albouy, Jean‐Pierre

doi:10.1016/j.prosdent.2014.09.001

Cited by 7 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 257 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…To date, few in vivo studies comparing cement and screw retained approaches have been conducted 2–4 . In addition, use of available evidence to support retention choice is limited by the accuracy of complication recording during the maintenance phase of implant treatment, 5,6 the market driven approach to implant research 7 and the influence of industry sponsorship on clinical trials and outcomes 8 . Regardless of this, a number of opinion papers have been written to facilitate clinical decision making for retention type 9–11 .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Strategies for restoration of single implants and use of cross‐pin retained restorations by Australian prosthodontists

Sambrook

Judge

Abuzaar

2012

Australian Dental Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Implant supported restorations (ISRs) for the single implant may be cement retained or screw retained. Limited scientific evidence exists to support the superiority of a retention type for either implant or prosthetic success. The aim of this study was to assess preferences of Australian prosthodontists when restoring single implants. In particular, clinical practices for cross-pin retained implant supported restorations for a single implant were investigated. Methods: A written questionnaire comprised of seven questions, some of which had multiple parts and of both open-and closed-format, was sent to 124 Australian prosthodontists. The questionnaire asked recipients to identify: (1) their preference for retention choice when restoring a single implant; (2) the frequency of use; and (3) clinical practice when restoring a cross-pin retained restoration. Results: Seventy-seven per cent of respondents indicated that direct to fixture (DTF) retention was their first preference. DTF retention was also the most frequently employed restoration for single implants. Respondents indicated that crosspinned ISRs are employed to maintain retrievability or when DTF is not possible. The majority of respondents indicated they always or sometimes use a gasket with cross-pin retained restorations, though gasket type varied. Thirty-eight respondents (31%) indicated that they would never use a cross-pinned retained restoration for a single ISR. Conclusions: Australian prosthodontists prefer, and more frequently restore single implants, using DTF retention. Queensland prosthodontists prefer cement retained ISRs. In comparison, cross-pinned restorations tend to be the least favoured and least used retention type. In addition, variation in opinion exists regarding the need for a gasket and type of gasket to be placed.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Strategies for restoration of single implants and use of cross‐pin retained restorations by Australian prosthodontists

Sambrook

Judge

Abuzaar

2012

Australian Dental Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, clinical decisions in restorative dentistry are usually subjective to the clinicians' point of view or intuition instead of being based on evidence. This problem occurs because scientific evidence is changing continuously, and clinicians need to make a big effort to keep up to date with a large amount of information in the scientific literature that is often contradictory (9)(10)(11)(12)(13)(14)(15)(16)(17)(18).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evidence‐based dentistry for planning restorative treatments: barriers and potential solutions

Afrashtehfar

Eimar

Yassine

et al. 2016

Eur J Dental Education

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…(Muller-Bolla, 2006). Los sellantes a base de cemento de vidrio ionómero (SCVI) han evolucionado desde los primeros utilizados, de baja densidad, con resultados dispares, a los actuales de alta densidad (Croll et al, 2002;Frenckenet al, 2004;Donovan et al, 2010). Estos últimos, aplicados con procedimiento restaurador atraumático (ART) con técnica de presión digital, han demostrado ser efectivos aún cuando se han registrado como total o parcialmente perdidos clínicamente.…”

Section: Introductionunclassified

Comportamiento de los sellantes de vidrio ionomero de alta densidad. Estudio a 6 años.

Casamayou¹,

Boghosian²,

Abella³

2016

Actas Odontol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Actas Odontológicas ResumenSi bien los sellantes a base de cemento de vidrio ionómero de alta densidad han demostrado ser eficaces en la prevención de caries en surcos y fisuras, hay pocos estudios mayores a tres años de duración y poco se ha discutido la conveniencia del resellado ni la oportunidad de realizarlo. El objetivo de esta investigación es llevar a cabo un estudio observacional que evalúe la retención y el efecto preventivo de caries de los SCVI a 6 años. Tomando como base los datos obtenidos en un estudio previo realizado por los mismos autores, de tres años de duración donde se comparó la efectividad de los sellantes a base de resina y de cemento de vidrio ionómero de alta densidad, en niños de 6 a 8 años, llevado a cabo por estudiantes de odontología en el marco de un programa de salud bucal, donde se reselló en los dos primeros años los molares que habían perdido total o parcialmente el sellante. En una segunda etapa se realizó un estudio longitudinal, observacional (2010-2013), que unido a los datos del estudio anterior (2007)(2008)(2009)(2010), completaron los 6 años. Participaron un total de 25 niños que totalizaron 42 molares. No se registró actividad de caries en ningún molar. Dos molares (en un mismo paciente) fueron sellados con resina por su odontólogo particular. En los controles de los años sin intervención, se reduce el número de sellantes totalmente presentes hasta casi desaparecer en 2013 (2,6%). No se observó una asociación significativa entre el estado de los sellantes y el número de resellados, (p-valor del Test de Fisher: 0.3627) La prueba Fisher de asociación entre las variables Edad y Resellado no detectó una asociación significativa (valor-p = 0.6261). Se observó que la probabilidad que un paciente de 6 años requiera un resellado es 2,450 veces mayor que la de uno de 8 años. CONCLUSIONES: Sellar con SCVI de alta densidad con técnica de presión digital es una medida eficaz de prevención de caries de surcos y fisuras en molares permanentes. El éxito se potencia si esa medida forma parte de un programa educativo-preventivo-asistencial. La presencia o ausencia parcial o total del sellante no es indicadora de éxito o fracaso del tratamiento. No se logró probar que el resellado influenció en el resultado final del estudio, aunque puede haber colaborado en cumplir el objetivo biológico. Se necesitan estudios comparativos que evalúen la efectividad y oportunidad del resellado. AbstractAlthough high density glass ionomer cement (GICS) sealants have proved to be effective in pit and fissure caries prevention, there are very few studies with more than three years of duration and practically no discussions about resealing convenience and the correct moment to do it. The aim of this study is to carry out a six years observation study to evaluate the retention and caries prevention effect of GICS. During a three years previous study (2007 -2010) performed by the authors comparing the effectiveness of resin based sealants and GICS, developed by odontology students during a community dental sc...

show abstract

Annual review of selected scientific literature: Report of the Committee on Scientific Investigation of the American Academy of Restorative Dentistry

Cited by 7 publications

References 257 publications

Strategies for restoration of single implants and use of cross‐pin retained restorations by Australian prosthodontists

Strategies for restoration of single implants and use of cross‐pin retained restorations by Australian prosthodontists

Evidence‐based dentistry for planning restorative treatments: barriers and potential solutions

Comportamiento de los sellantes de vidrio ionomero de alta densidad. Estudio a 6 años.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About