The primary objective of this systematic review was to compare treatment outcomes of direct and indirect permanent restorations in endodontically treated teeth, and provide clinical suggestions for restoring teeth after endodontic treatment.
Electronic databases (Medline, EMBASE, CENTRAL) and gray literature were screened for articles in English that reported on prospective and retrospective clinical studies of direct or indirect restorations after endodontic treatment with an observation period of at least 3 years. Primary outcomes were determined to be short-term (≤ 5 years) and medium-term (> 5 and ≤ 10 years) survival. Secondary outcomes included restorative and endodontic success of restored teeth. The quality of included studies and risk of bias were assessed using Cochrane Collaboration\'s tool for RCTs (randomized controlled trials), the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for cohort studies, and the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) methodology checklist for cross-sectional studies. The GRADE system was used for assessing collective strength of the overall body of evidence.
Of 2547 screened articles, only 9 (2 RCTs, 3 retrospective cohort studies, 3 cross-sectional studies) met the inclusion criteria, and 8 studies were used in the meta-analysis. In general, indirect restorations (mostly full crowns) showed higher 5-year survival (OR 0.28, 95% CI 0.19-0.43, p < 0.00001) and 10-year survival (OR 0.20, 95% CI 0.12-0.31, p < 0.00001) than direct restorations. However, there was no statistical difference in short-term (≤ 5-years) restorative success (OR 0.32, 95% CI 0.05-2.12, p = 0.24) and endodontic success (OR 0.88, 95% CI 0.72-1.08, p = 0.22).
Based on current evidence, there is a weak recommendation for indirect restorations to restore endodontically treated teeth, especially for teeth with extensive coronal damage. Indirect restorations using mostly crowns have higher short-term (5-year) and medium-term (10-year) survival than do direct restorations using composite or amalgam (GRADE quality of evidence: low to moderate), but no difference in short-term (≤ 5 years) restorative success (low quality) and endodontic success (very low quality). There is a need for high-quality clinical trials, especially well-designed RCTs.

OBJECTIVE: This systematic review was undertaken in order to develop guidelines for the European Academy of Paediatric Dentistry for the management of non-vital permanent anterior teeth with incomplete root development.
METHODS: Three techniques were considered; apexification by single or multiple applications of calcium hydroxide, use of Mineral Trioxide Aggregate (MTA) for the creation of an apical plug followed by obturation of the root canal, and finally a Regenerative Endodontic Technique (RET). Scottish Intercollegiate Guideline Network (SIGN) Guidelines (2008) were used for the synthesis of evidence and grade of recommendation.
RESULTS: Variable levels of evidence were found and generally evidence related to these areas was found to be weak and of low quality. It was not possible to produce evidence-based guidelines based on the strength of evidence that is currently available for the management of non-vital immature permanent incisors.
CONCLUSIONS: Based on the available evidence the European Academy of Paediatric Dentistry proposes Good Clinical Practice Points as a guideline for the management of such teeth. It is proposed that the long term use of calcium hydroxide in the root canals of immature teeth should be avoided and apexification with calcium hydroxide is no longer advocated. The evidence related to the use of a Regenerative Endodontic Technique is currently extremely weak and therefore this technique should only be used in very limited situations where the prognosis with other techniques is deemed to be extremely poor. The current review supports the use of MTA followed by root canal obturation as the treatment of choice.

In restorative dentistry, the non-vital tooth and its restoration have been extensively studied from both its structural and esthetic aspects. The restoration of endodontically treated teeth has much in common with modern implantology: both must include multifaceted biological, biomechanical and esthetic considerations with a profound understanding of materials and techniques; both are technique sensitive and both require a multidisciplinary approach. And for both, two fundamental principles from team sports apply well: firstly, the weakest link determines the limits, and secondly, it is a very long way to the top, but a very short way to failure. Nevertheless, there is one major difference: if the tooth fails, there is the option of the implant, but if the implant fails, there is only another implant or nothing. The aim of this essay is to try to answer some clinically relevant conceptual questions and to give some clinical guidelines regarding the reconstructive aspects, based on scientific evidence and clinical expertise.

The clinical concepts regarding the restoration of root canal treated teeth are not clear today and often based on conjecture due to a lack of sound empirical data. The diversity of published opinions is confusing and may lead to less-than-optimal treatment selections. There is also emerging debate whether or not a post is necessary. The purpose of the present article is to organize this topic in evidence-based principles and provide dental practitioners with clear guidelines about restorative therapy for premolar and molar teeth. Two clinical reports are presented, to exemplify the different clinical situations. The first case highlights a conservative restoration of an endodontically treated molar, maintaining an adequate quantity of healthy residual tissue and only covering the cusp with restoration material, which was not sustained by healthy dentin. In the second case, the fact that the premolar was so badly damaged by carious pathology meant that it was necessary to use a pin to anchor the composite material, and the cusp was covered completely. Based on the two presented clinical reports and a literature review, the concept of fiber post application is explained. Searches by hand and MEDLINE were employed to identify peer-reviewed articles on reconstruction of endodontically treated posterior teeth. A total of 70 articles published between 1967 and 2008 were reviewed.

暂无摘要。

A review of the literature was done to determine when posts are required for restoring endodontically treated teeth and to give guidance on preparation of post space, design of posts, and use of luting agents. Posts were deemed to be unnecessary when adequate coronal tooth structure was present to retain a core. It was found that tooth structure should not be removed to construct a stronger post. The thinnest post with adequate strength was recommended. For best retention, it was found that post surfaces should not be smooth. When resin reinforced glass ionomer cements were used, they were found to be potentially harmful to restored teeth. Remaining coronal tooth structure was found to have the highest correlation in regard to success of the final restoration of endodontically treated teeth.

暂无摘要。