Stopa trajanja keramičkih inlej i onlej restaurativnih nadoknada sa jednom ili više površina u bočnim zubima posle 10-godišnjeg praćenja: sistematski pregled i meta analiza
Sažetak
Uvod/Cilj. Velik broj studija bavio se ispitivanjem veka trajanja keramačkih restaurativnih nadoknada na pojedinačnim zubima, dok je manji broj njih proučavao uticaj broja površina tih nadoknada na njihov vek trajanja. Cilj ove studije bio je da proceni stopu trajanja keramičkih inlej i onlej restaurativnih nadoknada sa jednom ili više površina u bočnim zubima posle 10-godišnjeg praćenja. Metode. Pretražene su baze PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, Embase i Wanfang radi pronalaženja radova objavljenih do 31. jula 2016. godine. Prikupljeni su radovi o randomizovanim kontrolisanim kliničkim ispitivanjima i nerandomizovanim kliničkim ispitivanjima, u koja su bili uključeni pacijenti sa oštećenjem bočnih zuba. Takođe, bila je procenjena pristrasnost i izvršena analiza osetljivosti u ovim publikacijama. Rezultati. U ovu meta-analizu bilo je uključeno pet studija sa 6 720 pacijenata. Rezultati su pokazali da je tokom desetogodišnjeg praćenja vek trajanja inlej i onlej keramičkih restaurativnih nadoknada sa dvostrukom površinom bio znatno duži od onih sa jednom površinom [hazard ratio (HR) = 2,11; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1,33–3,36, p = 0,002], kao i da je vek trajanja nadoknada sa tri površine bio duži od onih sa dve površine (HR = 2,50, 95% CI: 1,36–4,59, p = 0,003). Zaključak. Ova meta-analiza pokazuje da povećanje površina keramičkih inlej i onlej restaurativnih nadoknada produžava njihov vek trajanja tokom perioda od 10 godina.
Reference
Boushell LW, Ritter AV. Ceramic inlays: A case presentation and lessons learned from the literature. J Esthet Restor Dent 2009; 21(2): 77–87.
Bergman MA. The clinical performance of ceramic inlays: A review. Aust Dent J 1999; 44(3): 157–68.
Tyas MJ. Dental amalgam ‒ What are the alternatives? Int Dent J 1994); 44(3): 303–8.
Roulet JF. Benefits and disadvantages of tooth-coloured alter-natives to amalgam. J Dent 1997; 25(6): 459–73.
Manhart J, Chen H, Hamm G, Hickel R. Buonocore Memorial Lecture. Review of the clinical survival of direct and indirect restorations in posterior teeth of the permanent dentition. Oper Dent 2004; 29(5): 481–508.
El-Mowafy O, Brochu JF. Longevity and clinical performance of IPS-Empress ceramic restorations ‒ a literature review. J Can Dent Assoc 2002; 68(4): 233–7.
Sjögren G, Lantto R, Granberg A, Sundström BO, Tillberg A. Clinical examination of leucite-reinforced glass-ceramic crowns (Empress) in general practice: A retrospective study. Int J Prosthodont 1999; 12(2): 122–8.
Thordrup M, Isidor F, Horsted-Bindslev P. A prospective clinical study of indirect and direct composite and ceramic inlays: ten-year results. Quintessence Int 2006; 37(2): 139–44.
Pol CW, Kalk W. A systematic review of ceramic inlays in pos-terior teeth: an update. Int J Prosthodont 2011; 24(6): 566–75.
Frankenberger R, Krämer N, Appelt A, Lohbauer U, Naumann M, Roggendorf MJ. Chairside vs. labside ceramic inlays: effect of temporary restoration and adhesive luting on enamel cracks and marginal integrity. Dent Mater 2011; 27(9): 892–8.
Magne P, Paranhos MP, Schlichting LH. Influence of material se-lection on the risk of inlay fracture during pre-cementation functional occlusal tapping. Dent Mater 2011; 27: 109–13.
Magne P, Knezevic A. Thickness of CAD-CAM composite resin overlays influences fatigue resistance of endodontically treated premolars. Dent Mater 2009; 25(10): 1264–8.
Frankenberger R, Reinelt C, Petschelt A, Kramer N. Operator vs. material influence on clinical outcome of bonded ceramic in-lays. Dent Mater 2009; 25(8): 960–8.
Schulz P, Johansson A, Arvidson K. A retrospective study of Mi-rage ceramic inlays over up to 9 years. Int J Prosthodont 2003; 16(5): 510–4.
Stoll R, Cappel I, Jablonski-Momeni A, Pieper K, Stachniss V. Survival of inlays and partial crowns made of IPS empress af-ter a 10-year observation period and in relation to various treatment parameters. Oper Dent 2007; 32(6): 556–63.
van Dijken JW, Hasselrot L. A prospective 15-year evaluation of extensive dentin-enamel-bonded pressed ceramic coverages. Dent Mater 2010; 26(9): 929–39.
Horn HR. Porcelain laminate veneers bonded to etched enam-el. Dent Clin North Am 1983; 27(4): 671‒84.
Stang A. Critical evaluation of the Newcastle-Ottawa scale for assessing the quality of nonrandomized studies in meta-analyses. Eur J Epidemiol 2010; 25(9): 603–5.
Colditz GA, Burdick E, Mosteller F. Heterogeneity in meta-analysis of data from epidemiologicstudies: a commentary. Am J Epidemiol.1995; 142: 371–82.
Higgins JP, Thompson SG. Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysis. Stat Med 2002; 21(11): 1539–58.
Beier US, Kapferer I, Burtscher D, Giesinger JM, Dumfahrt H. Clinical performance of all-ceramic inlay and onlay restora-tions in posterior teeth. Int J Prothodont 2012; 25(4): 395‒402
Reiss B, Walther W. Clinical long-term results and 10-year Kaplan-Meier analysis of Cerec restorations. Int J Comput Dent 2000; 3(1): 9‒23. (English, German)
Collares K, Corrêa MB, Laske M, Kramer E, Reiss B, Moraes RR, et al. A practice-based research network on the survival of ce-ramic inlay/onlay restorations. Dent Mater 2016; 32(5): 687‒94.
Otto T, De Nisco S. Computer-aided direct ceramic restora-tions: a 10-year prospective clinical study of Cerec CAD/CAM inlays and onlays. Int J Prosthodont 2002; 15(2): 122‒8.
Haas M, Arnetzl G, Pertl R, Polansky R, Smetan M. Cerec vs la-boratory Inlays. In: Mormann W, editor. CAD/CIM in Aes-thetic Dentistry. Chicago: Quintessence; 1996. p. 299‒312.
Posselt A1, Kerschbaum T. Longevity of 2328 chairside Cerec inlays and onlays. Int J Comput Dent 2003; 6(3): 231‒48.
Clelland NL, Warchol N, Kerby RE, Katsube N, Seghi RR. Influ-ence of interface surface conditions on indentation failure of simulated bonded ceramic onlays. Dent Mater 2006; 22(2): 99‒106.
Martin N, Jedynakiewicz NM. Clinical performance of CEREC ceramic inlays: a systematic review. Dent Mater 1999; 15(1): 54‒61.