Evidence-based dentistry最新文献

{"title":"Association between selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors and the periodontal status: a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational clinical studies.","authors":"Liana Rita Nicole Umbrio, Hieu Michael Pham, Abdul B Barmak, Nasser Assery, Elli Anna Kotsailidi","doi":"10.1038/s41432-025-01179-8","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1038/s41432-025-01179-8","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Aims: </strong>To evaluate the effect of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) on periodontal status through a systematic review and meta-analysis.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Nine databases were searched for clinical studies up to September 2024 to identify clinical studies comparing periodontal parameters such as probing depth (PD), clinical attachment level (CAL), marginal bone level (MBL), and gingival and plaque indices (GI and PI) between SSRI-users and non-users. Study selection, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment were performed independently by two authors. Random-effects meta-analyses of mean differences (MD) were performed. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach was used to assess the quality of available evidence.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Five cross-sectional studies, including a total of 1254 patients (54.15% females) and 13170 teeth, were included. The use of SSRIs was significantly associated with inferior MBL (MD, 0.10; 95% confidence interval, 0.01 to 0.20) compared to non-users. No significant differences were observed in PD, CAL, and GI between SSRI-users and non-users. The overall quality of evidence was low, and all studies presented a moderate risk of bias.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Based on a low level of available scientific evidence, the use of SSRIs has a marginal yet significant effect on MBL. However, there is no direct association between SSRIs usage and periodontal parameters such as PD, CAL, and GI. Nonetheless, further research is warranted.</p>","PeriodicalId":12234,"journal":{"name":"Evidence-based dentistry","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2025-07-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144682247","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Dental science for the medical professional: an evidence-based approach.","authors":"StJohn Crean","doi":"10.1038/s41432-025-01174-z","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1038/s41432-025-01174-z","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":12234,"journal":{"name":"Evidence-based dentistry","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2025-07-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144642185","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Tooth brushing learning methods: time to change practice?","authors":"Patrick Quinn, Mairead Harding","doi":"10.1038/s41432-025-01175-y","DOIUrl":"10.1038/s41432-025-01175-y","url":null,"abstract":"&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;A commentary on: &lt;/strong&gt;Leghrouz L, Khole M R, Splieth C H, Schmoekel J. Tooth Brushing Learning Methods: Differential or Conventional? - A Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial. Caries Res 2024; 58: 399-406.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Design: &lt;/strong&gt;A two-arm single-blinded randomised controlled clinical trial to investigate the effects of the differential learning method versus conventional tooth brushing instruction by assessing changes in plaque levels and gingivitis in children aged three to eight years.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Case selection: &lt;/strong&gt;Children aged three to eight years with poor oral hygiene at baseline, needing parental assistance with tooth brushing, and available to attend follow-up appointments were included in the study. Exclusion criteria included children with acute dental pain, those with serious systemic diseases requiring special attention during dental care, and those who refused to participate in the study. Participants were randomly assigned to the test and control groups by self-drawing an unlabelled envelope from a box. The sealed envelopes contained oral hygiene instructions with exercises to use the differential learning method for the test group and children in the control group received the usual tooth brushing instructions. Participants were asked to follow the instructions at home for 28 days.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Data analysis: &lt;/strong&gt;The sample size was calculated according to previous similar oral hygiene studies, with a final sample size of 29 participants in each group to allow for dropouts of approximately 30%. Data was analysed using Microsoft Excel, with the significance threshold set at p &lt; 0.05. Descriptive analysis included the calculation of means, standard deviation, absolute numbers, and percentages. Comparisons between the two groups were made using the independent samples t-test for quantitative variables and the chi-squared test for categorical variables.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Results: &lt;/strong&gt;Two calibrated and blinded examiners recorded the papillary bleeding index (PBI) and the Quigley-Hein Index for dental plaque (QHI) at baseline and at the first and second recall visits at four and twelve weeks respectively. Of the 58 children recruited for the study, 46 were included in the final analysis with 22 in the control group and 24 in the test group. At baseline, there were no significant differences between the groups with respect to plaque and gingival indices. At the first recall, a statistically significant difference in the PBI index was found in favour of the test group (test: 0.1 ± 0.2 v.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Control: &lt;/strong&gt;0.3 ± 0.2; p &lt; 0.001) but the difference in relation to the QHI index was not statistically significant (test: 2.1 ± 0.9 v. control 2.6 ± 0.9; p = 0.07). At the second recall, statistically significant differences in both indices were found in favour of the test group (PBI test: 0.1 ± 0.2 v. PBI control: 0.5 ± 0.2; p &lt; 0.001; QHI test: 2.1 ± 0.9 v. QHI control: 3.2 ± 1; p &lt; 0.001).&lt;/p&gt;","PeriodicalId":12234,"journal":{"name":"Evidence-based dentistry","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2025-06-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144332723","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Correction: What role do luting cements play in zirconia crown survival?","authors":"Reanna Craig, Gerry McKenna","doi":"10.1038/s41432-025-01177-w","DOIUrl":"10.1038/s41432-025-01177-w","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":12234,"journal":{"name":"Evidence-based dentistry","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2025-06-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144332721","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Fluoride: friend or foe? Exploring the effect of fluoride exposure on children's IQ scores.","authors":"Lydia Cross","doi":"10.1038/s41432-025-01176-x","DOIUrl":"10.1038/s41432-025-01176-x","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>A commentary on: </strong>Taylor KW, Eftim SE, Sibrizzi CA, Blain RB, Magnuson K, Hartman PA, Rooney AA, Bucher JR. Fluoride Exposure and Children's IQ Scores: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. JAMA Pediatr 2025; 179: 282-292.</p><p><strong>Data sources: </strong>A literature search without language restrictions was undertaken in October 2023 using the following databases: BIOSIS, Embase, PsycINFO, PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, CNKI, and Wanfang.</p><p><strong>Study selection: </strong>Two independent reviewers screened studies based on the title and abstract. Studies were included if the exposure was fluoride and the outcome was a quantitative measure of children's intelligence. In studies with multiple fluoride exposure levels, the highest was considered the exposure and the lowest the reference. Exclusion criteria included case reports, articles without original data, and conference abstracts. Full text articles were then screened. Translation assistance was obtained for non-English studies.</p><p><strong>Data extraction and synthesis: </strong>Data was extracted by one extractor and verified by a second. Risk-of-bias was evaluated by two independent trained assessors using the National Toxicology Programme's OHAT approach. Three meta-analyses were conducted: mean-effects, dose-response mean-effects, and regression slopes. Subgroup and sensitivity analyses were undertaken, including subgroup analyses without high risk-of-bias studies.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>74 studies were included, of which 59 reported mean IQ scores for group-level exposures and 19 reported regression slopes for individual-level exposures. Children exposed to higher levels of fluoride had statistically significantly lower IQs than those exposed to lower levels (standardised mean difference (SMD), -0.45; 95%CI, -0.57 to -0.33; P < 0.001). A dose-response association was also reported, with lower IQ scores reported with increasing fluoride exposure with a SMD of -0.15 (95%CI, -0.20 to -0.11; P < 0.001) for water fluoride levels and -0.15 (95%CI, -0.23 to -0.07; P < 0.001) for urinary fluoride levels. Fluoride exposure concentrations of <4 mg/L, <2 mg/L, and <1.5 mg/L were analysed. For water fluoride <1.5 mg/L, the association was not statistically significant. In the regression slopes meta-analysis, a 1 mg/L increase in urinary fluoride was associated with a decrease in IQ score of 1.63 points (95%CI, -2.33 to -0.93; P < 0.001); the effect size was smaller when analysis was limited to low risk-of-bias studies (decrease of 1.14 points (95%CI, -1.68 to -0.61; P < 0.001)).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>An inverse association was found between fluoride exposure and children's IQ scores, including an inverse dose-response association. This association was less certain at water fluoride concentrations <1.5 mg/L.</p>","PeriodicalId":12234,"journal":{"name":"Evidence-based dentistry","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2025-06-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144332722","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"A comparative review of the oral microbiome in clear aligners and fixed orthodontic appliances.","authors":"Anand Marya, Thantrira Porntaveetus, Katsushi Okazaki, Abdolreza Jamilian","doi":"10.1038/s41432-025-01173-0","DOIUrl":"10.1038/s41432-025-01173-0","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>A commentary on: </strong>Lucchese A, Marcolina M, Mancini N et al. A comparison of the alterations of oral microbiome with fixed orthodontic therapy and clear aligners: a systematic review. J Oral Microbiol 2025; 17: 2372751.</p><p><strong>Data sources: </strong>The review searched multiple electronic databases (PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, Web of Science, Scopus, Ovid, Dentistry and Oral Sciences Source) and gray literature (OpenGray) up to May 30, 2023.</p><p><strong>Study selection: </strong>The selection of the studies was processed according to PRISMA guidelines. Two reviewers independently screened titles and abstracts, with disagreements resolved by a third reviewer. Full-text articles were then assessed for eligibility based on pre-defined inclusion/exclusion criteria (RCTs, nRCTs, cohort studies; at least two time points for analysis; minimum 10 patients; clear aligners vs. fixed appliances or comparison between them; patients with good systemic health not taking medications).</p><p><strong>Data extraction and synthesis: </strong>Data extraction from the included studies was carried out by two reviewers in consultation with a third reviewer to define the variables for extraction and resolve any disagreements. Extracted data included study characteristics (author, year, design, sample size, patient age), intervention details, sample collection methods (saliva, plaque), microbial analysis methods (16S rRNA sequencing, PCR, BANA test), and microbiological outcomes. A qualitative synthesis was performed due to the heterogeneity of the included studies, precluding meta-analysis.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 484 articles were identified, with 9 studies that met the inclusion and exclusion criteria: eight non-randomized controlled trials and one randomized controlled trial. Sample sizes ranged from 10 to 77 participants. Various microbial analysis methods were employed, including 16S rRNA gene sequencing (5 studies), PCR (3 studies), and the BANA test (1 study). Following the application of rating scales, 1 article was classified as having a low risk of bias, 6 as having a moderate risk, and 2 as having a serious risk of bias.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The review suggests that clear aligners may be associated with a less detrimental impact on the oral microbiome compared to fixed appliances, possibly due to improved oral hygiene. Both therapies alter the oral microbiome; however, the changes caused by aligners are more conducive to better oral health compared to fixed appliances.</p>","PeriodicalId":12234,"journal":{"name":"Evidence-based dentistry","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2025-06-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144293610","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Is there a difference in the success rate of pulpotomies in primary teeth when using mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) compared to other calcium-silicate cements (CSC)?","authors":"Meenakshi Lall","doi":"10.1038/s41432-025-01170-3","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1038/s41432-025-01170-3","url":null,"abstract":"&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;A commentary on: &lt;/strong&gt;Silva E J N L D, Pinto K P, Riche F N S J et al. Success of primary teeth pulpotomy using calcium silicate cements: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised clinical trials. Pediatr Dent 2024; 46: 373-395.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Introduction: &lt;/strong&gt;This systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised clinical trials aimed to evaluate and compare the outcomes of pulpotomy procedures using Mineral Trioxide Aggregate (MTA) and other Calcium-Silicate Cements (CSCs).&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Methods: &lt;/strong&gt;The review protocol was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42023479322) and adhered to PRISMA 2020 guidelines. Two independent reviewers conducted a comprehensive systematic search across PubMed®, Cochrane Library, Scopus, Web of Science™, Embase®, and ScienceDirect®, supplemented by manual searches and OpenGrey. Eligible studies were selected according to the PICOS criteria, including only randomised clinical trials that reported clinical and radiographic evaluations of pulpotomies with a minimum follow-up period of six months. The certainty of evidence was appraised using the GRADE framework, evaluating domains such as risk of bias, inconsistency, indirectness, imprecision, and publication bias. Two reviewers independently assessed the severity of each domain. Meta-analyses were performed using RevMan 5.3, comparing clinical and radiographic success rates of MTA pulpotomies with those of alternative materials, based on dichotomous outcomes and patient recall. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane RoB-2 tool, and the overall certainty of evidence was determined according to the GRADE methodology.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Results: &lt;/strong&gt;A total of 662 articles were initially identified, with 26 studies included after screening and full-text review. Quality appraisal showed seven studies at low risk of bias, two with some concerns, and 17 at high risk, mainly due to poor randomisation, missing intention-to-treat analyses, and high attrition. Despite challenges in radiographic blinding, outcome and reporting biases remained consistently low. Meta-analyses compared pulpotomy outcomes in primary teeth treated with MTA versus other CSCs. No significant differences were observed between MTA and Biodentine™ in clinical success (P &gt; 0.05), though MTA showed higher radiographic success at 12 months (P &lt; 0.05). No significant differences were found between MTA and TheraCal® or Portland cement (P &gt; 0.05). Data were insufficient for analyses by pulpotomy type, tooth type, or irrigant used. The overall quality of evidence was low, due to a serious risk of bias and imprecision. Publication bias appeared minimal, and studies were free from private sector funding.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Conclusion: &lt;/strong&gt;This systematic review and meta-analysis demonstrated that mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) and other calcium silicate-based cements (CSCs) are effective materials for managing pulpotomies in primary teeth. Although MTA exhibited superior tre","PeriodicalId":12234,"journal":{"name":"Evidence-based dentistry","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2025-06-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144265801","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Do ultrasonic instrumentation and air polishing procedures adversely affect dental restorations?","authors":"Annabell Harman, Bryan Murchie","doi":"10.1038/s41432-025-01169-w","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1038/s41432-025-01169-w","url":null,"abstract":"&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;A commentary on: &lt;/strong&gt;Esati J, Amran T, Weiger R, Alsulaimani L, Blatz M B, Eggmann F. Adverse effects of ultrasonic instrumentation and air polishing on dental restorations: a systematic review of laboratory studies. J Esthet Restor Dent 2025; https://doi.org/10.1111/jerd.13428 .&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Objective: &lt;/strong&gt;A systematic review of the literature was conducted, assessing the potential for adverse effects on surface roughness and marginal integrity with use of ultrasonic instrumentation and air polishing on variety of dental restorations. With the aim to guide clinical practice to aid mitigation of adverse effects.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Data sources: &lt;/strong&gt;Five databases: Cochrane Library, OpenGrey through DANS, PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science, and supplemental manual searches were used to identify relevant literature. The review adhered to the PRISMA guidelines.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Study selection: &lt;/strong&gt;Publications were included between 1978 and 2022.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Population: &lt;/strong&gt;dental restorations or restorative biomaterials in vitro.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Intervention: &lt;/strong&gt;ultrasonic instrumentation and/or air polishing. Comparison: no debridement procedure or paste polishing.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Outcome: &lt;/strong&gt;surface roughness and/or marginal quality. Forty-two laboratory studies were included in the final analysis. The studies evaluated data to answer the following research question: In specimens made of or featuring dental restorations or restorative biomaterials, how does the use of ultrasonic instrumentation and/or air polishing, compared with no debridement procedure or paste polishing, affect the surface roughness and/or marginal quality?&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Data extraction and synthesis: &lt;/strong&gt;Data extracted included: author(s) and year, laboratory studies, biomaterials evaluated, specimen quantity, specimen geometry, grouping methodology, types of ultrasonic and/or air polishing devices used, air polishing powders, device operational settings, application type and duration of ultrasonic and/or air polishing, assessments of surface roughness and marginal quality, and the observed effects on both surface roughness and marginal quality. Biomaterial assessed included: porcelain fused to metal (PFM), zirconia (ZrO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt;), lithium disilicate (LDS), polymer-infiltrated ceramic network material (PICN), fine-structure felspathic ceramic (FSFC), gold alloy, amalgam, resin-modified glass ionomer cements (RMGIC), conventional and flowable resin-based composite (RBC), and silorane-based RBCs restorations. Studies measured surface roughness via contact profilometry, scanning electron microscopy, and atomic force microscopy. Ra was used as a parameter for surface roughness. Stereomicroscopy and confocal laser microscopy were used to assess marginal quality. Risk of bias was assessed using the RoBDEMAT tool.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Results: &lt;/strong&gt;Ultrasonic instrumentation and air polishing both negatively impacted surface roughness. Ai","PeriodicalId":12234,"journal":{"name":"Evidence-based dentistry","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2025-06-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144265794","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"What role do luting cements play in zirconia crown survival?","authors":"Reanna Craig, Gerry McKenna","doi":"10.1038/s41432-025-01172-1","DOIUrl":"10.1038/s41432-025-01172-1","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>A commentary on: </strong>Torres C, Mailart M C, Ávila D et al. Influence of glass ionomer-based luting cements on the clinical success of zirconia crowns: randomized clinical trial. Oper Dent 2025; 50: 144-156.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>This 24-month prospective, split-mouth randomised clinical trial compared the performance of conventional glass ionomer cement (GIC) and resin-modified glass ionomer cement (RMGIC) for luting full-coverage ceramic-fused-to-zirconia crowns.</p><p><strong>Participants: </strong>Thirty participants were enrolled; 27 attended the 12-month review and 24 were assessed at the 24-month follow-up. Inclusion criteria included adults who needed two anterior or two posterior crowns. Silicone impressions were used to fabricate casts, which were scanned for CAD/CAM milling of zirconia copings. Clinical outcomes were assessed at 7 days, 12 months, and 24 months by calibrated, blinded examiners.</p><p><strong>Data analysis: </strong>The primary outcome was crown retention; whilst secondary outcomes included fracture, wear, pulpal response, patient satisfaction, plaque and bleeding indices, and marginal integrity. Assessments followed modified USPHS and FDI criteria. An intention-to-treat analysis using last observation carried forward was applied. Fisher's Exact test compared anterior and posterior outcomes, while Kaplan-Meier estimates and log-rank tests were used to evaluate restoration survival (p < 0.05).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Success rates recorded were 93.3% for GIC and 100% for RMGIC. For anterior crowns, GIC success declined to 83.3% at two years, while RMGIC maintained a 100% success rate throughout. Posterior crowns showed 100% success in both groups, with no loss of retention or secondary caries recorded.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Both GIC and RMGIC demonstrated favourable short-term outcomes. However, anterior crowns cemented with GIC were more prone to failure, suggesting that crown location should inform cement selection. Optimising luting agent choice may improve long-term clinical success.</p>","PeriodicalId":12234,"journal":{"name":"Evidence-based dentistry","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2025-06-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144247209","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Comparison of marker-based and marker-free registration techniques in dynamic navigation-guided implant surgery for fully and partially edentulous patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis.","authors":"Meisha Gul, Baoxin Tao, Wenjie Zhou, Feng Wang, Yiqun Wu","doi":"10.1038/s41432-025-01171-2","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1038/s41432-025-01171-2","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To compare the accuracy of marker-based and marker-free registration methods in the context of dynamic navigation guided implant surgery for patients with partial or complete tooth loss.</p><p><strong>Methodology: </strong>The review includes research articles written in English and Mandarin Chinese published between January 2013 and May 2025, from databases such as MEDLINE/PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane, Embase, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) and Web of Science. Both laboratory-based and clinical investigations were taken into account. Thirteen studies, met the specified criteria for inclusion and underwent meta-analysis. Sub-analyses were performed to compare various registration modalities. The assessment of collective evidence was conducted using the GRADE system.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>No statistically significant differences were observed between registration methodologies i.e; marker based and marker free. Subgroup analysis highlighted a preference for marker-based methods, specifically those utilizing U-shaped markers and bone markers, especially in the lower jaw. No notable variations were noted in terms of time efficiency. Marker-free registration was favored for outcomes reported by patients.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Both marker-free and marker-based registration strategies are considered feasible options. Selection should be made based on factors such as practicality, cost, efficiency, clinician preference, and patient-reported outcomes. The results should be interpreted with caution due to the considerable variability among studies, underscoring the necessity for more consistent and dependable data.</p><p><strong>Prospero registration number: </strong>CRD42024504573.</p>","PeriodicalId":12234,"journal":{"name":"Evidence-based dentistry","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2025-06-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144224878","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}