Success rates of prosthetic restorations on endodontically treated teeth; a systematic review after 6 years. (10th May 2013)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Ploumaki, A.; Bilkhair, A.; Tuna, T.; Stampf, S.; Strub, J. R.
• Is Part Of: Journal of oral rehabilitation. Volume 40:Number 8(2013:Aug.)
• Page Start: 618
• Page End: 630
• Publication Date: 2013-05-10
• Subjects: Dentistry -- Periodicals; Prosthodontics -- Periodicals; 617
• DOI: 10.1111/joor.12058
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0305-182X

Abstract

<abstract abstract-type="main" id="joor12058-abs-0001"> <title>Summary</title> <p>The aims of this systematic review were to investigate the success rates of prosthetic restorations on endodontically treated teeth and their manner of failure. PubMed and hand literature searches were conducted on studies published until June 2012. Only clinical studies on human subjects referring to the success rates of prosthetic restorations on endodontically treated teeth with a follow‐up period of at least 6 years were reviewed. A total of four studies were identified. Meta‐analysis showed the success rate to be 92% (CI 82–98%) for single crowns on endodontically treated teeth and 79% (72–86%) for fixed dental prostheses. Only one study reported on removable dental prostheses with a success rate of 66%. Single crowns on teeth restored without posts demonstrated a success rate of 94% (CI 84–99%), whereas where posts were placed, the success rate was lower (92% CI 82–98%). Single crowns over cast post‐and‐cores and prefabricated posts showed success rates of 93% (CI 82–99%) and 94% (CI 90–97%), respectively; both differences were not statistically significant (significance level of 5%). The most common reason for failure was post‐debonding. Single crowns seem to be the best treatment modality for endodontically treated teeth. However, due to the low number of studies included and their design, the results of this systematic review should be interpreted with caution. Further clinical studies are needed to provide high‐quality evidence on the topic.</p> </abstract>