Abstract
ObjectivesThe survival rate of indirect partial adhesive restorations on vital versus endodontically treated teeth is still controversial. The hypothesis is that there may be a difference in the survival rate of partial adhesive restorations performed on non-vital teeth compared to vital teeth.Materials and methodsThis systematic review was conducted following the PRISMA guidelines. The considered clinical studies investigated the outcomes of adhesive inlays, onlays, and overlays conducted over the past 40 years, focusing on Kaplan–Meier survival curves to calculate the hazard ratio (primary objective) and the survival rate (secondary objective) between vital and non-vital teeth. The risk of bias was assessed using the Newcastle–Ottawa Scale. Studies included in the review were identified through bibliographic research on electronic databases (“PubMed,” “Scopus,” “Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trial,” and “Embase”). The K agreement between the two screening reviewers was evaluated.ResultsA total of 55,793 records were identified on PubMed, Scopus, and other bibliographic sources, and after the application of the eligibility and inclusion criteria, eight articles were included for qualitative analysis and six for quantitative analysis. The meta-analysis of the primary and secondary outcomes demonstrated that hazard ratios (HR = 8.41, 95% CI: [4.50, 15.72]) and survival rates (OR = 3.24, 95% CI: [1.76, 5.82]) seemed more favorable for indirect partial adhesive restorations on vital teeth than for those on endodontically treated teeth.ConclusionsWithin the limits of this study, these findings suggest that the risk of failure of indirect partial adhesive restorations on endodontically treated teeth is higher than on vital teeth.Clinical relevanceThe use of partial adhesive restorations on vital and endodontically treated teeth showed different long-term clinical outcomes.
Highlights
The clinical failure of adhesive restorations still raises strong interest in the scientific literature, especially when endodontically treated teeth (ETT) are considered
The study was constructed on the population, intervention, control, and outcome (PICO) questions: patient, intervention, control, and outcome; a scientific question was asked: What is the hazard ratio of failure of indirect partial restorations in ETT compared to those placed on vital teeth?
After an initial screening of abstracts identified on the evaluated databases, the potentially eligible articles were qualitatively evaluated to investigate the survival rate of inlays, onlays, and overlays on both vital and ETT, focusing on the research of the studies that reported hazard ratios or Kaplan–Meier survival curves to allow the calculation of the hazard ratio of vital to non-vital teeth
Summary
The clinical failure of adhesive restorations still raises strong interest in the scientific literature, especially when endodontically treated teeth (ETT) are considered. Clinical Oral Investigations that, during a 17-year monitoring period, 5.1% of restored teeth needed replacement due to endodontic reasons, which could negatively contribute to the reduction of the tooth survival rate [5]. Full crown preparations tend to remove a large amount of healthy dental tissue from teeth that have already lost a huge quantity of sound tooth structure due to pathology and endodontic procedures [14]. The majority of recent studies have focused more on partial direct or indirect bonded restorations, which ensure higher sound tissue preservation than traditional fixed full crowns [15, 16]. As a consequence of this paradigm shift, direct and indirect partial bonded restorations, such as inlays, onlays, overlays, and endocrowns, have been proposed for the rehabilitation of ETT as valid therapeutic alternatives to conventional prosthetic solutions [17–20]
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
