Purpose: Fixed restorations and dental enamel have different structures that produce different wear on opposing teeth, resulting in clinical problems. Therefore, it is necessary to determine the type of restoration that causes less wear on naturally opposing teeth to make recommendations. The objective of this study was to systematically analyze the evidence from observational studies and clinical trials on enamel wear in different ceramic restorations.

Study selection: The designs of the included studies were randomized clinical trials (RTCs), non-randomized clinical trials (non-RTCs), and observational studies (OS). The studies must answer the research question, be available in full text, be written in English or Spanish, and have had at least six months of follow-up. Protocol number: CRD42023397759.

Results: After screening 499 records, 20 RTCs were subjected to data extraction, 10 were excluded, 10 were included in the systematic review, and only 5 were included in the network meta-analysis. The risk of bias assessment reported moderate to high risk of bias, quality, and certainty of evidence was evaluated and rated as moderate. Network meta-analysis showed higher enamel wear was observed in natural dental enamel against metal-ceramic antagonists.

Conclusions: Enamel wear occurs in all teeth, even when the antagonist is a natural tooth. The wear is larger on surfaces with the ceramic crown antagonists studied (metal-ceramic, glazed zirconia, and polished zirconia). It is necessary to conduct additional clinical trials with larger follow-up periods and sample sizes.

Purpose: This network meta-analysis (NMA) of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) aimed to identify effective initial conservative treatment strategies for patients with temporomandibular joint disorders (TMD).

Study selection: RCTs comparing treatment options for TMD published between January 2000 and July 2021 were retrieved from the databases of PubMed and Embase via a comprehensive electronic search. Patients diagnosed with myalgia (muscle pain) or arthralgia (joint pain) according to pain-related Diagnostic Criteria for Temporomandibular Disorders (DC/TMD) and the Research Diagnostic Criteria for Temporomandibular Disorders (RDC/TMD) were eligible for inclusion. Twelve treatment options and a placebo were included in the mutual comparisons. The risk of bias was assessed using Risk of Bias 2.0. Forest plots of direct comparisons between individual studies were created using MetaInsight. NMA was performed using R statistical software (netmeta).

Results: Twenty-four RCTs involving 1336 patients assessing pain and 12 RCTs involving 614 patients assessing maximal mouth opening were identified. Low-level laser therapy (standard mean difference [SMD]: -2.12, 95% confidence interval [CI]: -3.18, -1.06), self-exercise (SMD: -1.51, 95% CI: -2.82, -0.2), and stabilization splints (SMD: -1.16, 95% CI: -2.02, -0.29) were effective in improving pain; however, the certainty of evidence was very low. Self-exercise (SMD: 0.71, 95% CI: -0.58, 2.01), stabilization splints (SMD: 0.65, 95% CI: -0.09, 1.39), and low-level laser therapy (SMD: 0.63, 95% CI: -0.34, 1.6) were effective in improving maximal mouth opening; however, the certainty of evidence was very low.

Conclusions: Stabilization splints, self-exercise, and low-level laser therapy may be effective in the initial treatment of TMD.

Purpose: This study aimed to compare the deviation of hypermobile teeth in partially edentulous dental arches during impression taking using digital and conventional techniques.

Methods: A partially edentulous mandibular model with three target hypermobile teeth (including the left first premolar, #34; left second molar, #37; and right first premolar, #44), was used as the simulation model. After reference data were acquired using a desktop scanner, impressions of the simulation model were obtained using a digital intraoral scanner (IOS) and two conventional techniques (hydrocolloid material with a stock tray and silicone material with a custom tray as impression data (n=12/group). The three-dimensional accuracy (root mean square value) and two-dimensional accuracy (mesiodistal and buccolingual displacements) of the target teeth in each impression dataset were calculated based on the reference data. The comparison among three impression techniques was statistically performed using the Kruskal–Wallis test (α=0.05).

Results: For #34 and #44, the three- and two-dimensional accuracies of the impressions fabricated through data acquired through digital scanning (digital impression) were significantly superior to those of the hydrocolloid impression (P < 0.05), whereas no significant difference was found between the digital and silicone impressions. For #37, no significant difference in the accuracy of the impression data for the target teeth was observed among the three impression techniques.

Conclusions: Digital impression acquiring using an IOS is recommended over using a conventional hydrocolloid impression to prevent the deviation of hypermobile teeth in partially edentulous dental arches. Hypermobile tooth deviation in digital impression data depends on the tooth location.

Purpose: This study aimed to evaluate the risk of bone loss around single short molar crown-supporting implants in an atrophic mandible.

Methods: Implants of different lengths (L = 4 or 6 mm) and diameters (Ø = 4.1 or 4.8 mm) were placed in the molar area of an atrophic mandible. Additional control mandible models were simulated for 4.1 mm diameter implants (L = 4, 6, 8, and 10 mm). A vertical masticatory load of 200 N was applied to three or six occlusal contact areas (3ca or 6ca) of the prosthetic crown. The bone strain energy density (SED) of 109.6 µJ/mm³ was assumed to be the pathological threshold for cortical bone. The peri-implant bone resorption risk index (PIBRri) was calculated by dividing the maximum SED of the crestal cortical bone by the SED pathological threshold.

Results: Increasing the implant length from 4 to 6 mm, implant diameter from 4.1 to 4.8 mm, and number of contact areas from 3 to 6 reduced the SED and PIBRri values by approximately 20%, 35%, and 40%, respectively, when comparing pairs of models that isolated a specific variable. All models with 6ca had a low bone resorption risk (PIBRri<0.8), while the Ø4.1 short implant with 3ca had a medium (0.8≤PIBRri≤1.0) or high (PIBRri>1.0) resorption risk.

Conclusions: Increasing the diameter or occlusal contact area of a 4 mm short implant in an atrophic mandible resulted in reduced bone resorption risks, similar to or lower than those observed in a regular mandible with standard-length implants.

Purpose: Marginal bone loss (MBL) occurs in the periapical cervical bone after dental implant placement and abutment connection. MBL may not result in peri-implantitis; however, it is always accompanied by MBL. Recent studies have demonstrated that early MBL is a predictor of peri-implantitis. In this narrative review, we aimed to provide an evidence base for recommended treatment strategies for clinicians to prevent MBL.

Study Selection: We reviewed the recent literature and performed a narrative synthesis of the evidence, focusing on available systematic reviews and meta-analyses of implant marginal bone resorption.

Results: The available evidence indicates that certain biological, material, and technical factors can influence MBL and consequently dictate the risk of developing peri-implant disease in later years. The order of the impact of the strength of each factor is unknown. Current recommendations to prevent MBL include controlling patients’ smoking and hemoglobin A1c levels to sufficiently low levels before surgery and throughout their lifetime. Regarding the material, a platform-switching, conical-connecting implant system, and an abutment with a height of at least 2 mm should be selected. Placement should be performed using techniques that ensure sufficient soft tissue (keratinized gingival width > 2 mm, supracrestal tissue height > 3 mm), and non-undersized preparations in the cortical bone should be made with connected concave abutments during primary or secondary surgery. Patients should receive supportive peri-implant therapy during maintenance.

Conclusions: MBL development is multifactorial and can be reduced by considering the biological, material, and technical factors.