Percorrer por autor "Mazzoni, Annalisa"
A mostrar 1 - 2 de 2
Resultados por página
Opções de ordenação
- Clinical longevity of direct and indirect posterior resin composite restorations : an updated systematic review and meta-analysisPublication . Josic, Uros; D’Alessandro, Carlo; Miletic, Vesna; Maravic, Tatjana; Mazzitelli, Claudia; Jacimovic, Jelena; Sorrentino, Roberto; Zarone, Fernando; Mancuso, Edoardo; Delgado, António H. S.; Breschi, Lorenzo; Mazzoni, AnnalisaObjectives: To answer the PICO(S) question: Is there a difference in clinical longevity between direct and indirect resin composite restorations placed on permanent posterior teeth? Data: Randomized controlled clinical trials (RCTs) investigating direct and indirect resin composite restorations in posterior permanent teeth were considered. Sources: Several electronic databases were searched, with no language or date restrictions. The revised Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias (RoB-2) was used to analyze the studies; meta-analyses were run and the certainty of evidence was assessed by the GRADE tool. A subgroup meta-analysis was performed for resin composite restorations placed on posterior worn dentition. Study selection: Twenty-three articles were included in qualitative synthesis, while 8 studies were used for meta-analyses. According to the RoB-2 tool, 5 studies were ranked as “low risk”, 7 had “some concerns”, while 11 papers were rated as “high risk” of bias. There were no statistically significant differences in short-term (p = 0.27; RR=1.54, 95% CI [0.72, 3.33]), medium-term (p = 0.27; RR=1.87, 95% CI [0.61, 5.72]) and long-term longevity (p = 0.86; RR=0.95, 95% CI [0.57, 1.59]). The choice of restorative technique had no influence on short-term survival of resin composite restorations placed on worn dentition (p = 0.13; RR=0.46, 95% CI [0.17, 1.25]). The certainty of evidence was rated as “very low”. Conclusions: Direct and indirect resin composite restorations may show similar clinical longevity in posterior region, regardless of the observation period or substrate (wear-affected and non-affected dentition). The very low quality of evidence suggests that more long-term RCTs are needed to confirm our results.
- RoBDEMAT : a risk of bias tool and guideline to support reporting of pre-clinical dental materials research and assessment of systematic reviewsPublication . Delgado, António H. S.; Sauro, Salvatore; Lima, Adriano F.; Loguercio, Alessandro D.; Bona, Alvaro Della; Mazzoni, Annalisa; Collares, Fabricio Mezzomo; Staxrud, Frode; Ferracane, Jack; Tsoi, James; Amato, Julia; Neuhaus, Klaus W.; Ceballos, Laura; Breschi, Lorenzo; Hannig, Matthias; Melo, Mary Anne; Özcan, Mutlu; Scotti, Nicola; Opdam, Niek; Yamaguchi, Satoshi; Paris, Sebastian; Turkun, Lezize Sebnem; Doméjean, Sophie; Rosa, Vinicius; Palin, William; Schwendicke, FalkObjectives: To develop a risk of bias tool for pre-clinical dental materials research studies that aims to support reporting of future investigations and improve assessment in systematic reviews. Methods: A four-stage process following EQUATOR network recommendations was followed, which included project launch, literature review, Delphi process and the tool finalization. With the support of the European Federation of Conservative Dentistry (EFCD) and the Dental Materials Group of the International Association for Dental Research (DMG-IADR), a total of 26 expert stakeholders were included in the development and Delphi vote of the initial proposal. The proposal was built using data gathered from the literature review stage. During this stage, recent systematic reviews featuring dental materials research, and risk of bias tools found in the literature were comprehensively scanned for bias sources. The experts thus reached a consensus for the items, domains and judgement related to the tool, allowing a detailed guide for each item and corresponding signalling questions. Results: The tool features nine items in total, spread between 4 domains, pertaining to the following types of bias: bias related to planning and allocation (D1), specimen preparation (D2), outcome assessment (D3) and data treatment and outcome reporting (D4). RoBDEMAT, as presented, features signalling questions and a guide that can be used for RoB judgement. Its use as a checklist is preferred over a final summary score. Conclusion: RoBDEMAT is the first risk of bias tool for pre-clinical dental materials research, supported and developed by a broad group of expert stakeholders in the field, validating its future use.