Comparison of resin modified glass ionomer cement and composite resin in class II primary molar restorations: a 2-year parallel randomised clinical trial

Long-term clinical comparison of a resin-based composite and resin modified glass ionomer in the treatment of cervical caries lesions

This 72-month study compared the clinical effectiveness of a resin-based composite (RBC) (Spectrum TPH3, Dentsply Sirona) with a resin-modified glass ionomer cement (RMGIC) (Riva Light Cure, SDI) in restoring cervical caries lesions (CCLs). Thirty-three patients, each with at least two CCLs, were enrolled. After caries removal, the dimensions of the cavities were recorded. In a split-mouth study design, a total of 110 restorations were randomly placed. Fifty-five restorations were placed with RBC using an etch-and-rinse adhesive system (Prime&Bond NT, Dentsply Sirona), while the remaining 55 were restored with RMGIC. The restorations were assessed at baseline, 6, 12, 18, 24, 36, 60, and 72 months according to modified USPHS criteria. Statistical analysis included Pearson Chi-square, Friedman tests, Kaplan Meier, and Logistic Regression analysis (p < 0.05). After 72 months, 47 restorations in 19 patients were evaluated (55% follow-up rate). Seventy-five percent of the RBC (n = 26) and 74% (n = 21) of the RMGIC restorations were fully retained. There were no significant differences between materials regarding retention and marginal adaptation (p > 0.05). Cavity dimensions, caries activity, and retention exhibited no correlation (p > 0.05). The increase in marginal staining in both groups over time was significant (p < 0.001). RMGIC restorations exhibited higher discoloration than RBC restorations (p = 0.014). At 72 months, three secondary caries lesions were detected in both restoration groups: two RMGIC and one RBC. There were no reports of sensitivity. After 72 months, both RBC and RMGIC restorations were clinically successful, with similar retention and marginal adaptation scores. However, it is noteworthy that RMGIC restorations tend to discoloration over time compared to RBC. The trial is registered in the database of "Clinical Trials". The registration number is NCT0372-2758, October 29, 2018.

Dental treatment outcomes in Thai children treated for severe early-childhood caries under general anaesthesia and non-pharmacological behaviour management: a retrospective study

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to compare dental-treatment outcomes, oral-hygiene improvement, and patient co-operation during follow-up visits between children treated under general anaesthesia (GA) and non-pharmacological behaviour management (NP).

METHODS

This retrospective study reviewed the dental chart records of healthy patients less than 71-month-old with severe early childhood caries (S-ECC) from 2008 to 2020 with at least a 6-month follow-up. The demographical data, dental-treatment outcomes, oral-hygiene status, and patient behaviour at the follow-up visits were analysed by the Mann-Whitney U test, Pearson's Chi-square, Fisher's exact test, Friedman test, and Wilcoxon test with a significance level of 0.05.

RESULTS

This study included 210 GA cases and 210 age-matched control NP cases. The GA group had a significantly higher caries experience, lower patient co-operation, poorer oral hygiene, and higher number of complex dental treatment than the NP group at baseline (p < 0.001). The number of children who had incomplete dental treatment under non-pharmacological behaviour management was higher than the GA group. After treatment, the number of new carious teeth in the NP group was significantly higher than in the GA group only at the 6-month follow-up. However, there was no significant difference in treatment failure, oral-hygiene improvement, and patient behaviour between groups.

CONCLUSION

Although patients in the GA group had higher dental and behaviour problems than the NP group, the overall dental-treatment outcomes, including oral hygiene and behaviour improvement, were not significantly different between groups Therefore, regular follow-up and preventive treatment in the maintenance phase are essential for children with severe early-childhood caries.

The preventive effect of glass ionomer cement restorations on secondary caries formation: A systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

The objective is to compare the preventive effect on secondary caries of glass ionomer cement (GIC) restorations with amalgam or resin-composite restorations.

METHODS

Two independent researchers conducted a systematic search of English publications in PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane and Scopus. They selected randomized clinical trials comparing secondary caries incidences around GIC restorations (conventional GIC or resin-modified GIC) with amalgam or resin-composite restorations. Meta-analysis of the secondary-caries incidences with risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence interval (95% CI) as the effect measure was performed.

RESULTS

This review included 64 studies. These studies included 8310 GIC restorations and 5857 amalgam or resin-composite restorations with a follow-up period from 1 to 10 years. Twenty-one studies with 4807 restorations on primary teeth and thirty-eight studies with 4885 restorations on permanent teeth were eligible for meta-analysis. The GIC restorations had a lower secondary caries incidence compared with amalgam restorations in both primary dentition [RR= 0.55, 95% CI:0.41-0.72] and permanent dentition [RR= 0.20, 95% CI:0.11-0.38]. GIC restorations showed similar secondary caries incidence compared with resin-composite restorations in primary dentition [RR= 0.92, 95% CI:0.77-1.10] and permanent dentition [RR= 0.77, 95% CI:0.39-1.51]. Conventional GIC restorations showed similar secondary caries incidence compared with resin-modified GIC-restored teeth in both primary dentition [RR= 1.12, 95% CI:0.67-1.87] and permanent dentition [RR= 1.63, 95% CI:0.34-7.84].

CONCLUSIONS

GIC restorations showed a superior preventive effect against secondary caries compared to amalgam restorations, and a similar preventive effect against secondary caries compared to resin-composite restorations in both primary and permanent teeth. [PROSPERO Registration ID: CRD42022380959].

Evidence-based clinical practice guideline on restorative treatments for caries lesions: A report from the American Dental Association

BACKGROUND

An expert panel convened by the American Dental Association (ADA) Council on Scientific Affairs together with the ADA Science and Research Institute's program for Clinical and Translational Research conducted a systematic review and developed recommendations for the treatment of moderate and advanced cavitated caries lesions in patients with vital, nonendodontically treated primary and permanent teeth.

TYPES OF STUDIES REVIEWED

The authors searched for systematic reviews comparing carious tissue removal (CTR) approaches in Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and Trip Medical Database. The authors also conducted a systematic search for randomized controlled trials comparing direct restorative materials in Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform. The authors used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach to assess the certainty of the evidence and formulate recommendations.

RESULTS

The panel formulated 16 recommendations and good practice statements: 4 on CTR approaches specific to lesion depth and 12 on direct restorative materials specific to tooth location and surfaces involved. The panel conditionally recommended for the use of conservative CTR approaches, especially for advanced lesions. Although the panel conditionally recommended for the use of all direct restorative materials, they prioritized some materials over the use of others for certain clinical scenarios.

PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS

The evidence suggests that more conservative CTR approaches may decrease the risk of adverse effects. All included direct restorative materials may be effective in treating moderate and advanced caries lesions on vital, nonendodontically treated primary and permanent teeth.

Diagnosis and Assessment of Dental Caries Using Novel Bioactive Caries Detecting Dye Solution

BACKGROUND

The goal of materials should be early caries detection, removal of carious lesions, and reduction of dentin hypersensitivity. Thus, the study aims to determine the efficacy of a bioactive caries detecting dye (BCD) for the diagnosing and mechanical removal of occlusal and proximal dental caries.

METHODS

Patients with occlusal (A1, A2) and proximal carious lesions (B1, B2) were treated with the rotary technique and BCD solution on 120 teeth (n = 60 for each). Group 1: Excavation was performed using diamond points. Group 2: 0.5 mL of BCD solution was scrubbed for 20 sec and excavation was performed with a sharp spoon excavator. Post-excavation cavity volume analysis was performed using a 3D scanner. The time required, VAS for pain, VAS for facial expression, and sound eye motor scoring were scored during excavation. Post-restoration evaluation was performed at 3, 6, and 12 months (FDI criteria).

RESULTS

The chi-square test revealed that the A1 (197.90 30.97 s) and B1 (273.06 69.95 s) had significantly less mean procedural time than the A2 (292.13 44.87 s) and B2 (411.86 88.34 s). BCD (A2, B2) group showed good patient acceptance, less pain during caries excavation VAS (p = 0.001, FACE (p = 0.001), and SEM (p < 0.001) analysis than the rotary group. There was a statistically insignificant difference between groups immediately (p = 0.235), (p = 0.475) and after 24 h (p = 0.561), (p = 0.688). Color score, hardness of excavated surface, and caries removal score for occlusal and proximal groups showed insignificant differences between the groups. BCD group showed significantly less mean caries excavated volume for the occlusal group (p = 0.003) as compared to the proximal group (p = 0.417) evaluated by 3D scanner. Evaluation of restoration after 3-, 6-, and 12 months intervals (Occlusal caries group (p = 0.247), (p = 0.330), and (0.489) and Proximal caries group (p = 0.299), (p = 0.594), and (0.494)) was acceptable for both the groups.

CONCLUSION

BCD helps in identification of dental caries clinically, radiographically, and in effective removal of denatured teeth with less pain or sensitivity.

Direct materials for restoring caries lesions: Systematic review and meta-analysis-a report of the American Dental Association Council on Scientific Affairs

BACKGROUND

The goal of restoring caries lesions is to protect the pulp, prevent progression of the disease process, and restore the form and function of the tooth. The purpose of this systematic review was to determine the effect of different direct restorative materials for treating cavitated caries lesions on anterior and posterior primary and permanent teeth.

TYPE OF STUDIES REVIEWED

The authors included parallel and split-mouth randomized controlled trials comparing the effectiveness of direct restorative materials commercially available in the United States placed in vital, nonendodontically treated primary and permanent teeth. Pairs of reviewers independently conducted study selection, data extraction, and assessments of risk of bias and certainty of the evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach. The authors conducted pair-wise meta-analyses to summarize the evidence and calculated measures of association and their 95% CIs.

RESULTS

Thirty-eight randomized controlled trials were eligible for analysis, which included data on Class I and Class II restorations on primary teeth and Class I, Class II, Class III, Class V, and root surface restorations on permanent teeth. Included studies assessed the effect of amalgam, resin composite, compomer, conventional glass ionomer cement, resin-modified glass isomer cement, and preformed metal crowns. Moderate to very low certainty evidence suggested varying levels of effectiveness across restorative materials.

CONCLUSIONS AND PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS

Owing to a relatively low event rate across various outcomes indicating restoration failure, there was limited evidence to support important differences between direct restorative materials used in practice.

Clinical effectiveness of restorative materials for the restoration of carious primary teeth without pulp therapy: a systematic review

Purpose

To systematically search the available evidence and evaluate the clinical effectiveness of restorative materials for restoration of carious primary teeth. The findings aimed to support the European Academy of Paediatric Dentistry (EAPD) guidelines development.

Methods

Literature search was performed by searching 4 electronic databases for eligible randomised controlled clinical trials (RCTs) comparing restorative materials for the restoration of carious primary teeth up to December 28th, 2020. Quality assessment was performed with the revised Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomized trials (RoB 2).

Results

Of 1685 identified articles 29 RCTs were finally deemed as eligible for inclusion. Annual failure rates were: Amalgam 1–28%; atraumatic restorative treatment 1.2–37.1%; glass-ionomer cement (GIC) 7.6–16.6%, metal-reinforced GIC 29.9%, resin-modified GIC 1.9–16.9%, high-viscosity GIC 2.9–25.6%; glass carbomer ≤ 46.2%; compomer 0–14.7%; composite resin (CR) 0–19.5%, bulk-fill CR 0–16.9%; zirconia crowns 3.3%, composite strip crowns 15%, and preformed metal crowns (Hall-Technique) 3.1%. Secondary caries, poor marginal adaptation, loss of retention, and fracture of restoration were reported as reasons for failure. Four studies were evaluated at unclear and 25 at high risk of bias. Clinical and methodological heterogeneity, and the diversity of tested materials across included studies did not allow for meta-analyses.

Conclusions

Within the limitations of this systematic review, namely, the heterogeneity and the overall high risk of bias among included studies, clear recommendations based on solid evidence for the best restorative approach in primary teeth cannot be drawn. There is a need for future thoroughly implemented RCTs evaluating restorations in primary teeth to close this knowledge gap.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s40368-022-00725-7.

Clinical Effectiveness of Restorative Materials for the Restoration of Carious Primary Teeth: An Umbrella Review

Since untreated dental caries remain a worldwide burden, this umbrella review aimed to assess the quality of evidence on the clinical effectiveness of different restorative materials for the treatment of carious primary teeth. A literature search in electronic bibliographic databases was performed to find systematic reviews with at least two-arm comparisons between restorative materials and a follow-up period ≥12 months. Reviews retrieved were screened; those eligible were selected, and the degree of overlap was calculated using the 'corrected covered area' (CCA). Data were extracted and the risk of bias was assessed using the ROBIS tool. Fourteen systematic reviews with a moderate overlap (6% CCA) were included. All materials studied performed similarly and were equally efficient for the restoration of carious primary teeth. Amalgam and resin composite had the lowest mean failure rate at 24 months while high-viscosity and metal-reinforced glass ionomer cements had the highest. At 36 months, high-viscosity glass ionomer cements showed the highest failure rate with compomer showing the lowest. Most reviews had an unclear risk of bias. Within the limitations of the review, all materials have acceptable mean failure rates and could be recommended for the restoration of carious primary teeth.

Tooth-coloured materials for class II restorations in primary molars: systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

The aim of this systematic review was to compare the success rate of five tooth-coloured materials, namely Glass Ionomer (GI), Resin-Modified Glass Ionomer (RMGI), Composite Resin (CR), Polyacid-Modified Composite Resin or Compomer (CO) and High-Viscosity Glass Ionomer (HVGI) in primary molar Class II restorations.

METHODS

Five databases were searched from inception to April 23, 2020 for randomized clinical trials comparing the failure rate of these materials. After duplicate study removal, data extraction and risk of bias assessment with the Cochrane tool, data synthesis was conducted, comparing all five tooth-coloured materials in pairs and computing the overall success rate for each one, respectively.

RESULTS

A total of 5615 articles were obtained by electronic and hand literature search. After the application of the eligibility criteria, ten RCTs were included in this systematic review and six RCTs for meta-analysis. Their risk of bias was assessed to be high to moderate. Due to the small number of RCTs comparing the five restorative materials in pairs investigated in the same study, only three MAs were available for heterogeneity assessment. These were: (1) between CO-RMGI (RR 1.04 [0.59, 1.84]; p = 0.88; I² = 1%), (2) CR-CO (RR 1.12 [0.41, 3.02]; p = 0.83; I² = 57%), and (3) between CR-RMGI (RR 1.10 [0.74, 1.63]; p = 0.65; I² = 0%). No statistically significant differences were found between the two materials in all three comparisons.

CONCLUSION

CR, RMGI and CO presented no statistical differences. In comparison to other tooth-coloured materials, studies on GI were too few to allow recommendations about its use. More studies on HGVI are needed for evidence-based recommendations to be made. The evidence extracted from this meta-analysis was not strong enough (moderate), due to the small number of RCTs and the risk of bias ranging from high to moderate. More, well-designed RCTs comparing tooth-coloured materials for primary molar Class II restorations are necessary.

Three-year performance of a nano-filled resin-modified glass ionomer cement in class II primary molar restorations

PURPOSE

To compare the clinical failure rate of two resin-modified glass ionomer cements (RMGICs) used for Class II primary molar restorations over a 3-year period.

METHODS

Healthy, cooperative children aged 4-8 years with carious, asymptomatic primary molars requiring class II restorations received either nano-filled (Ketac Nano, 3 M ESPE) or regular (Vitremer, 3 M ESPE) RMGIC restorations. These were blindly assessed semiannually for 3 years using the modified USPHS criteria with all-cause failure as primary outcome and failure for each criterion as secondary outcome. Data was analysed with Fisher's exact tests and survival analysis with robust standard errors at 5%.

RESULTS

Outcome assessment included 159 teeth at 12 months, 141 teeth at 24 months, and 98 teeth at 36 months. No difference in all-cause failure was found between regular and nano-filled RMGIC at 12 (8.6% versus 14.1%), 24 (9.0% versus 14.9%) or 36 months (7.4% versus 20.5%) (P > 0.05). The nano-filled RMGIC retained better its anatomical form and the regular RMGIC likewise its marginal integrity (P < 0.05), but only in the acceptable range (Alpha-Bravo). Overall, survival analysis found no significant difference for all-cause failure [hazard ratio (HR) 0.58; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.25-1.31; P = 0.19] or any secondary outcomes other than contact point integrity. Finally, subgroup analysis by jaw indicated that the regular RMGIC performed better than the nano-filled RMGIC for mandibular molars (HR 0.36; 95% CI 0.13-0.96; P = 0.04), but further data are needed.

CONCLUSION

Nano-filled RMGIC showed less occlusal wear but more mild marginal defects than regular RMGIC, but these findings were of limited clinical significance and both materials performed favourably for 3 years.

Shear bond strength and interfacial analysis of high-viscosity glass ionomer cement bonded to dentin with protocols including silver diammine fluoride

PURPOSE

High-viscosity glass ionomer cements (HV-GICs) are reinforced with ultrafine, highly reactive glass particles, as well as a higher-molecular-weight polyalkenoic acid component. Silver diammine fluoride (SDF) is an agent with promising activity against active caries. The present study aimed to evaluate the shear bond strength (SBS) and interfacial morphology of a new HV-GIC bonded to dentin after treatment with various adhesive protocols including SDF.

METHODS

HV-GIC cylinders were bonded to dentin after various surface treatments (6 groups, n = 22): water; polyalkenoic acid; SDF; SDF + potassium iodide (KI); SDF + KI + polyalkenoic acid; SDF + KI + two weeks of storage in water + polyalkenoic acid. For each group, 20 samples were tested for SBS after 48 h, and 2 samples were cut and subjected to environmental scanning electron microscopy (E-SEM) and energy-dispersive X-ray (EDX) analysis.

RESULTS

No significant differences in SBS were found between any of the protocols tested. However, E-SEM and EDX images showed different interfaces when SDF was applied.

CONCLUSION

SDF has no influence on the adhesion of HV-GIC to sound dentin and could potentially improve the cario-resistance of the dentin/HV-GIC interface.

Success rate of proximal tooth-coloured direct restorations in primary teeth at 24 months: a meta-analysis

The aim was to determine the survival of tooth-coloured restorative materials in proximal restorations of primary teeth at 24 months of follow-up and the influence of the following variables: use of coating, use of cavity conditioner, use of rubber dam isolation, the cavity form, the dentist's experience and the methodological characteristics of the studies. We conducted a search until May 2019, obtaining 16 articles from which 30 independent studies were extracted, which were considered as units of analysis. Four outcome measures were extracted from each study: retention, marginal integrity, anatomic form, and absence of recurrent caries. Separate meta-analyses were carried for each outcome and multiple meta-regression model was applied. The outcomes with the highest mean success rates were absence of recurrent caries and anatomic form. The type of material significantly influenced success rates. The best materials were resin-based material plus total-etching adhesion and resin-modified glass ionomer cement (RMGIC), and the worst high viscosity glass ionomer cement (HVGIC). Atraumatic restorative treatment (ART) had a lower success rate than the conventional cavity form. RMGIC had the best clinical performance and HVGIC the worst. The form of the cavity, blinding and the experience of the operator were the variables that influenced success rates. Proximal primary molar restorations should be performed with RMGIC as it combines good mechanical performance of the resins together with the prevention of secondary caries of glass ionomers.