Pulpal and Periapical Status of the Vital Teeth Used as Abutment for Fixed Prosthesis-A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

PURPOSE: This is a systematic review to identify the incidence of pulp necrosis and/or periapical changes among vital teeth which are used as an abutment for crown and fixed partial dentures (FPDs).

MATERIALS AND METHODS: Two reviewers independently searched two electronic databases, PubMed and Scopus. The search was complemented from references of included studies and published reviews. Studies published in the English language through January 2021 that had assessed and documented the clinical and radiographic failure of crown or FPD in vital permanent teeth due to pulpal or periapical pathology with a follow-up of at least 12 months were selected. Data screening, data collection and extraction of data was performed. Quality of studies involved was analyzed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale for cohort studies. Meta-analysis was done using random effects model. Publication bias was assessed using funnel plots.

RESULTS: Electronic searches provided 10,075 records among which 20 studies were selected for systematic review and 7 studies were selected for meta-analysis. With respect to quality assessment, all the studies involved were considered as high quality as the score in scale ranged between 6 and 9 as per the Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale for cohort studies. The meta-analyses showed that there was no statistically significant difference in the incidence of the loss of pulp vitality or pulp necrosis through clinical and radiographic examination with the follow up period of 5 years: p < 0.001, 95% CI: 0.96-1.00, I2 = 77.84%; 10 years: p < 0.001, 95% CI: 0.88-0.95, I2 = 93.59%; 15 years: p < 0.001, 95% CI: 0.92-0.96, I2 = 94.83%; and 20 years: p < 0.001, 95% CI: 0.94-0.96, I2 = 95.01%.

CONCLUSIONS: The meta-analysis revealed clinical and radiographic success rate ranging between 92% to 98% at different follow up periods ranging between 5 years and 20 years. Future high-quality randomized clinical controlled trials with a larger population are required to confirm the evidence as only observational studies were considered in this paper.