Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jul 15, 2026

Mimicking and Measuring Occlusal Erosive Tooth Wear with the "Rub&Roll" and Non-contact Profilometry
Published on: February 2, 2018
Bruxism and direct and indirect restorations failure: A scoping review
Tanya Al-Talib1, Xan Goodman2, Hassan Ziada1
1Clinical Sciences Department, School of Dental Medicine, University of Nevada, Las Vegas, NV, USA.
Objective:
To analyze and present the relationship between bruxism and the failure of direct and indirect dental restorations.
Methodology:
The reporting followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR). Human studies reporting on the failure of dental restorations in relation to bruxism were included.
Sources:
MEDLINE (Ovid), Scopus and Pub Med databases were searched from 2012 to 2024. Additional hand searching was made using Google Scholar, and Scopus were utilized for snowball searching.
Study Selection:
An initial systematic search was made of bruxism and dental restorations failures based on key terms using MeSH and other thesaurus terms appropriate for each database published between 2012 and 2024. Two reviewers screened ten articles using the established criteria for inclusion and exclusion, and a level of agreement of 90 % was established. The available literature on the frequency of studies of the relationship between Bruxism and failure of direct and indirect dental restorations and also identify gaps in the literature for further investigation.
Conclusions:
There were 66 manuscripts for full-text evaluation. After further exclusion, 46 manuscripts were selected for data charting. The studies were on the relationship between bruxism and restorations failure: dental implants studies were 58.7 %; mixed restorations were 10.9 %; indirect restoration (Full Coverage Crowns and Fixed Partial Dentures) 15.2 %; indirect partial coverage restoration (inlays/onlays/overlays/crowns) 6.5 %; indirect restoration (veneers) 4.3 %; direct restoration also 4.3 %. The 87.5 % of the implant studies addressed the effects of bruxism on single implant restorations failure.
Limitations Of Evidence:
Most of the included studies were retrospective, with few prospective studies or clinical trials. However, Bruxism is a risk factor for the failure of direct and indirect restorations.
Clinical Significance:
Clinicians should be aware that direct and indirect restorations are at risk of failure in the presence of bruxism, with the exception of indirect monolithic Zirconia.
More Related Videos
03:07Scanning Electron Microscopic Evaluation of Surface Defects of Remover Retreatment File After Single and Multiple Uses
Published on: October 11, 2024
07:42Quasistatic Mechanical Testing for Computer-Aided Design and Manufacturing Occlusal Veneers Cemented to Milled Dentin Analog Material
Published on: December 20, 2024
Related Concept Videos
Teeth
In the bud stage, the tooth germ (an aggregation of cells) starts to form in the developing jawbone. During the cap stage, the tooth germ differentiates into enamel organ, dental papilla, and dental sac, which will later develop into the tooth's enamel, dentin and...
Microcracking in Concrete