STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: Endocrowns are a monoblock type of restoration that use the pulp chamber and remaining coronal tooth structure as a means of retention. However, data on their long-term survival and success rates as compared with conventional crowns are lacking.
PURPOSE: The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to collate published work on endocrowns to assist clinicians in making decisions on when and whether they are an appropriate restorative option with a predictable outcome for extensively damaged endodontically treated teeth.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: Databases such as PubMed (MEDLINE), Scopus, EMBASE, Cochrane library, and Google Scholar were searched up to June 2019 for clinical and in vitro studies on endocrown survival and success rates. For the meta-analysis, endocrown and conventional crown survival and success rates were compared, and the pooled effects were presented as relative risks and 95% confidence intervals using a random effects model.
RESULTS: Ten studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria (3 clinical and 7 in vitro) and were included in the systematic review. The meta-analysis of the clinical studies showed an estimated overall 5-year survival rate of 91.4% for endocrowns and 98.3% for conventional crowns. The estimated overall 5-year success rates were 77.7% for endocrowns and 94% for conventional crowns. There were no significant differences in overall survival or success estimates between the assessed restorations (P>.05).
CONCLUSIONS: Additional well-designed clinical studies with long-term assessment are needed; however, endocrowns appear to be a promising conservative restorative option with acceptable long-term survival for endodontically treated posterior teeth in selected patients.
Owing to an increased demand for safe and esthetically pleasing dental materials, ceramics have been developed and optimized to rehabilitate anterior and posterior teeth. This evolution in ceramic materials is directly related to the development of sophisticated processing technologies and systems for use in dental medicine, particularly computer-aided design/computer-assisted manufacture (CAD/CAM) technology. This study is a systematic review outlining long-term clinical survival rates of single-tooth restorations fabricated with CAD/CAM technology with a minimum follow-up of 3 years. A bibliographic search up to September 2016 was performed using two databases: MEDLINE (PubMed) and Embase. Selected keywords and well-defined inclusion and exclusion criteria guided the search of relevant results. All articles were first reviewed by title, then by abstract, and subsequently by a full text reading. Data were assessed and extracted through a standardized form. The pooled results were statistically analyzed, and the overall failure rate was calculated by random effects model. Reported failures were analyzed by CAD/CAM system, type of restoration, restorative material, and luting agent. From a total of 2,916 single-tooth restorations with a mean exposure time of 7.0 years and 351 failures, the failure rate was 2.17% per year, estimated per 100 restoration years (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.35% to 3.51%). The estimated total survival rate after 5 years was 89.7% (95% CI: 88.1% to 91.1%). The overall survival rate of single-tooth ceramic restorations fabricated with CAD/CAM technology was similar to those conventionally manufactured.
OBJECTIVES: A systematic review was conducted to evaluate clinical (survival) and in vitro (fracture strength) studies of endocrown restorations compared to conventional treatments (intraradicular posts, direct composite resin, inlay/onlay).
DATA: This report followed the PRISMA Statement. A total of 8 studies were included in this review.
SOURCES: Two reviewers performed a literature search up to February 2016 in seven databases: PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, BBO, SciELO, LILACS and IBECS.
STUDY SELECTION: Only clinical trials and in vitro studies that evaluated endocrowns were included. Case reports, case series, pilot studies, reviews and in vitro studies that evaluated properties other than fracture strength of endocrowns were excluded. From the 103 eligible articles, 8 remained in the qualitative analysis (3 clinical trials and 5 in vitro studies), and the meta-analysis was performed for the 5 in vitro studies. A global comparison was performed with random-effects models at a significance level of p<0.05.
RESULTS: Clinical trials showed a success rate of endocrowns varying from 94 to 100%. The global analysis in posterior and anterior teeth demonstrated that endocrowns had higher fracture strength than conventional treatments (p=0.03). However, when comparing endocrowns to conventional treatments only in posterior teeth (subgroup analyses), no statistically significant differences were found between treatments (p=0.07; I(2)=62%).
CONCLUSION: The literature suggests that endocrowns may perform similarly or better than the conventional treatments using intraradicular posts, direct composite resin or inlay/onlay restorations.
CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Although further studies are still necessary to confirm the present findings, endocrowns show potential application for the rehabilitation of severely compromised, endodontically treated teeth.
Endocrowns are a monoblock type of restoration that use the pulp chamber and remaining coronal tooth structure as a means of retention. However, data on their long-term survival and success rates as compared with conventional crowns are lacking.
PURPOSE:
The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to collate published work on endocrowns to assist clinicians in making decisions on when and whether they are an appropriate restorative option with a predictable outcome for extensively damaged endodontically treated teeth.
MATERIAL AND METHODS:
Databases such as PubMed (MEDLINE), Scopus, EMBASE, Cochrane library, and Google Scholar were searched up to June 2019 for clinical and in vitro studies on endocrown survival and success rates. For the meta-analysis, endocrown and conventional crown survival and success rates were compared, and the pooled effects were presented as relative risks and 95% confidence intervals using a random effects model.
RESULTS:
Ten studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria (3 clinical and 7 in vitro) and were included in the systematic review. The meta-analysis of the clinical studies showed an estimated overall 5-year survival rate of 91.4% for endocrowns and 98.3% for conventional crowns. The estimated overall 5-year success rates were 77.7% for endocrowns and 94% for conventional crowns. There were no significant differences in overall survival or success estimates between the assessed restorations (P>.05).
CONCLUSIONS:
Additional well-designed clinical studies with long-term assessment are needed; however, endocrowns appear to be a promising conservative restorative option with acceptable long-term survival for endodontically treated posterior teeth in selected patients.
