Resin-modified and conventional glass ionomer restorations in primary teeth: 8-year results

A Critical Review on the Factors Affecting the Bond Strength of Direct Restorative Material Alternatives to Amalgam

This article comprehensively reviews the performance of simplified direct restorative materials that have the potential to be an alternative to amalgam. Following an understanding of the material structures and clinical performances, this review provides an analysis of the bonding mechanisms and influential factors on the bond strength. These factors include substrate-related variations, involving primary vs. permanent dentin, sound- vs. caries-affected/demineralized dentin comparisons and surface-related factors and pretreatments. Special attention is given to the factors changing the substrate surface, such as different contaminants, remedy methods after contamination and different conditioning methods related to the materials. Variations in sample preparation and bond strength test parameters are also evaluated for the analysis of the outcomes. This review aims to provide an overview of the factors involved in the application procedure of direct restorations together with in vitro testing variations to guide the selection of suitable materials by understanding strengths and shortcomings.

Comparison of Class II Bulk-Fill, Self-Adhesive Composites, Alkasite, and High-Viscosity Glass Ionomer Restorations in Terms of Marginal and Internal Adaptation

(1) Background: Restoring decayed teeth in young patients can be challenging. This calls for a simplification of the protocols through new biomaterials. Therefore, the aim of this study was to compare the marginal adaptation delivered by restorative materials applied on class II cavities by using a simplified protocol, before and after fatigue test, followed by the assessment of the internal adaptation. (2) Methods: Forty-eight human teeth were divided into six groups (n = 8). Dentinal fluid simulation was performed before restoring the class II cavities: Gr 1-adhesive (Clearfil Universal Bond Quick) and nanohybrid flowable composite (Clearfil Majesty ES Super Low Flow), Gr 2-adhesive (Clearfil Universal Bond Quick) and nanohybrid composite (Clearfil Majesty ES standard), Gr 3-bulk fill self-adhesive composite (Surefil One), Gr 4-bioactive powder-liquid filling material (Cention Forte), Gr 5-universal adhesive (Adhese Universal) and nanohybrid composite resin (Tetric Powerfill); and control group (CT)-high-viscosity glass ionomer (Equia Forte). Marginal adaptation was observed with scanning electron microscopy (SEM) and compared before and after a fatigue test consisting of repeated thermal and mechanical cycles. The specimens were then cut mesio-distally, and internal adaptation was undertaken using SEM again. Repeated measures and one way ANOVA followed by a Fisher's LSD test and Fisher's LSD post hoc test were used in order to compare the statistically significant differences among groups. (3) Results: As for the marginal adaptation after loading, Cention Forte (58%) and Equia Forte HT (53%) were statistically equivalent and presented the highest results, followed by Clearfil Majesty ES Standard (32%) and Tetric Powerfill (27%), with Surefil One (8%) and Clearfil Majesty ES Flow Super Low (7%) showing the worst results. In terms of internal adaptation, Cention Forte (85%) and Clearfil Majesty ES Standard (74%) had the highest percentages of continuous margins. Tetric powerfill (56%) and Equia Forte HT (44%) showed statistically significantly lower results, followed by Clearfil Majesty ES Flow Super Low (33%) and eventually Surefil One (17%). (4) Conclusions: This in vitro study showed promising results for the marginal and internal adaptation of alkasite dual cured Cention Forte in the restoration of class II cavities. This material could be considered an interesting restorative alternative for the restoration of deciduous teeth.

In vitro remineralization of adjacent interproximal enamel carious lesions in primary molars using a bioactive bulk-fill composite

BACKGROUND

Surface remineralization is recommended for the management of active non-cavitated interproximal carious lesions in primary teeth. According to the American Academy of Pediatric Dentistry, a recently recognized category of materials called bioactive restorative materials can be used for remineralization. This study aimed to evaluate the release of fluoride (F), calcium (Ca) and phosphate (P) ions from Predicta® Bioactive Bulk-fill composite compared with EQUIA Forte® and Filtek™ Z350 and to determine the remineralization effect of these 3 restorative materials on adjacent initial interproximal enamel carious lesions.

METHODS

The release of F, Ca and P ions from 3 groups ((n = 10/group) (Group 1- Predicta®, Group 2- EQUIA Forte® and Group 3- Filtek™ Z350)) was determined at 1st, 4th, 7th and 14th days. After creating artificial carious lesions, human enamel samples were randomly assigned into 3 groups (n = 13/group) which were placed in contact with occluso-proximal restorative materials and exposed to a 14-day pH cycling period. Surface microhardness was determined using a Knoop microhardness assay at baseline, after artificial carious lesions formation and after pH cycling. The difference in the percentage of surface microhardness recovery (%SMHR) among groups was compared. Mineral deposition was analyzed with energy-dispersive x-ray spectroscopy (EDS) and the enamel surface morphology was evaluated with scanning electron microscopy (SEM). Kruskal-Wallis's test with Dunn's post hoc test and one-way ANOVA with Tukey's post hoc test were used for data analysis.

RESULTS

EQUIA Forte® released the highest cumulative amount of F and P ions, followed by Predicta® and Filtek™ Z350. Predicta® released higher amount of Ca ions than EQUIA Forte® and Filtek™ Z350. Predicta® demonstrated the highest %SMHR, followed by EQUIA Forte® and Filtek™ Z350. There was a significant difference in the %SMHR between Predicta® and Filtek™ Z350 (p < 0.05). However, EQUIA Forte® demonstrated the highest fluoride content, followed by Predicta® and Filtek™ Z350. The SEM images of EQUIA Forte® and Predicta® revealed the greater mineral deposition.

CONCLUSION

Predicta® demonstrated a marked increase in surface microhardness and fluoride content of adjacent initial interproximal enamel carious lesions in primary molars compared with Filtek™ Z350. Predicta® is an alternative restorative material to remineralize adjacent initial interproximal enamel carious lesions in primary molars, especially in high-risk caries patients.

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].

Evaluation of the Success of Conventional and Biological Restorative Treatment Approaches for Caries in Primary Molars: An In Vivo Study

Background

In order to compare the clinical and radiographic success of three treatment modalities-conventional restoration (CR), nonrestorative caries treatment (NRCT), and Hall technique (HT), with a 3-month to 1 year follow-up in deciduous molars with occlusal or proximal carious lesions.

Design

Children between the ages of 5 and 8 were chosen for the study, having a total of 120 teeth. They were split into three groups, each with 40 participants-CR, HT, and NRCT. Clinical and radiographic evaluation was done at 3, 6, 9, and 12 months. Data were statistically analyzed.

Results

The Chi-squared value and p-value were found to be insignificant when comparing clinical and radiographic ratings of all three groups at 3, 6, 9, and 12-month intervals.

Conclusion

Hall technique (HT) performed better than CR. NRCT was more acceptable to patients than CR.

How to cite this article

Undre MI, Chunawala Y, Choubey S, et al. Evaluation of the Success of Conventional and Biological Restorative Treatment Approaches for Caries in Primary Molars: An In Vivo Study. Int J Clin Pediatr Dent 2023;16(4):591-597.

A comparative evaluation of micro shear bond strength and microleakage between the resin-modified glass ionomer cement and residual dentin following excavation of carious dentin using Carie CareTM and conventional caries removal in primary teeth: an in vitro study

Background: The bond between the dentin and restorative material contributes to the success of the restoration. Structural changes associated with prepared dentin may influence the bonding of restorative materials. The present study evaluates the bond between the resin-modified glass ionomer cement (RMGIC) and residual dentin following excavation of carious dentin using Carie Care ^TM and conventional caries removal in primary teeth.

METHODS

52 primary teeth with dentinal caries were randomly grouped into group I, where caries removal was done using the conventional method, and group II which used Carie Care ^TM. All the teeth were restored using RMGIC. Micro shear bond strength between the residual dentin and the cement was tested using universal testing machine and the dye penetration method was used for microleakage testing. Independent t-test was performed for intergroup comparison. Pearson chi-square test was carried out to evaluate the microleakage patterns in the enamel and dentin.

RESULTS

The mean micro-shear bond strength of group I was 6.03±1.6 and that of group II was 8.54±2.92; this difference was statistically significant with a p-value of 0.012. Microleakage was higher in the test group (1.38±0.51) than the control group (0.77±0.6) and was significant with a p -value of .036.

CONCLUSIONS

Papain-based chemomechanical agent Carie Care ^TM can be used as an alternative method to conventional caries removal. However, further studies need to explore methods to improve the marginal sealing capacity of RMGIC to the residual dentin after chemomechanical caries removal.

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

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the effectiveness of glass ionomer cement (GIC) restorations on preventing new caries in primary or permanent dentitions compared with other types of restorations.

DATA

Randomized controlled clinical trials evaluating caries experience increment or caries incidence in patients with GIC restorations, including conventional GIC (CGIC) and resin-modified GIC (RMGIC) restorations, were included.

SOURCES

A systematic search of publications in English was conducted in PubMed/Medline, Web of Science, Cochrane, and Scopus databases.

STUDY SELECTION/RESULTS

This review included 10 studies reporting caries preventive effect of GIC restorations and selected 5 studies for meta-analysis. Patients with GIC restorations showed lower caries incidence compared with other restorations in primary and permanent dentition [RR=0.67, 95% CI:0.55-0.82, p<0.0001]. Patients with CGIC restorations showed lower caries incidence compared with amalgam restorations [RR=0.57, 95% CI:0.43-0.76, p=0.0001] and RMGIC restorations [RR=0.70, 95% CI:0.56-0.87, p=0.002], but no statistical difference with composite resin restorations [RR=0.73, 95% CI:0.51-1.04, p=0.08] in primary dentition. Patients with RMGIC restorations showed no statistical differences of caries incidence compared with composite resin restorations in primary and permanent dentition [RR=0.83, 95% CI:0.56-1.22, p=0.33].

CONCLUSIONS

GIC restorations presented a better preventive effect on new caries than other restorations did in primary and permanent dentitions. CGIC restorations presented a better caries preventive effect on new caries than RMGIC and amalgam restorations in primary dentitions did. RMGIC restorations showed similar preventing effect on new caries with composite resin restorations in primary and permanent dentitions.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

This review affirmed the potential of GIC in preventing new caries development in the dentition.

Comparative evaluation of the sealing ability of an alkasite restorative material and resin-modified glass ionomer cement in primary molars: An In vivo study

Background:

Cention N is relatively new and an “alkasite” restorative material, indicated for direct restorations.

Aim:

The aim of this study was to comparatively evaluate the sealing ability of Cention N and resin-modified glass ionomer cement (GIC) when used to restore primary molars.

Methods and Materials:

It is a split-mouth study. Twenty children having bilateral deep dentinal caries involving primary molars requiring restoration were selected. After caries excavation under the rubber dam, samples were collected from the cavity. Restorations of the teeth were done using either resin-modified GIC (RMGIC) or Cention N. Patients were recalled after 6 weeks and the restorations done previously were removed using contra angled micromotor handpiece under rubber dam isolation. The samples were collected again. The collected samples were used to estimate the total viable count.

Statistical Analysis:

The pretreatment, posttreatment colony counts, and the differences between the groups were analyzed using paired t-test.

Results:

No statistically significant difference was observed in the mean differences of the pre- and posttreatment colony count between alkasite restorative material and RMGIC (P = 0.056).

Conclusion:

Restorations done using alkasite restorative material and RMGIC performed equally in terms of sealing ability.

Physical property investigation of contemporary glass ionomer and resin-modified glass ionomer restorative materials

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this study was to investigate selected physical properties of nine contemporary and recently marketed glass ionomer cement (GIC) and four resin-modified glass ionomer cement (RMGI) dental restorative materials.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Specimens (n = 12) were fabricated for fracture toughness and flexure strength using standardized, stainless steel molds. Testing was completed on a universal testing machine until failure. Knoop hardness was obtained using failed fracture toughness specimens on a microhardness tester, while both flexural modulus and flexural toughness was obtained by analysis of the flexure strength results data. Testing was completed at 1 h, 24 h, 1 week, and then at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months. Mean data was analyzed with Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney (p = 0.05).

RESULTS

Physical properties results were material dependent. Physical properties of the GIC and RMGI products were inferior at 1 h compared to that at 24 h. Some improvement in selected physical properties were noted over time, but development processes were basically concluded by 24 h. A few materials demonstrated improved physical properties over the course of the evaluation.

CONCLUSIONS

Under the conditions of this study: 1. GIC and RMGI physical property performance over time was material dependent; 2. Polyalkenoate maturation processes are essentially complete by 24 h; 3. Although differences in GIC physical properties were noted, the small magnitude of the divergences may render such to be unlikely of clinical significance; 4. Modest increases in some GIC physical properties were noted especially flexural modulus and hardness, which lends support to reports of a maturing hydrogel matrix; 5. Overall, GIC product physical properties were more stable than RMGI; 6. A similar modulus reduction at 6 months for both RMGI and GIC produced may suggest a polyalkenoate matrix change; and 7. Globally, RMGI products demonstrated higher values of flexure strength, flexural toughness, and fracture toughness than GIC materials.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

As compared to RMGI materials, conventional glass ionomer restorative materials demonstrate more stability in physical properties.

The effect of dentine pre-treatment using bioglass and/or polyacrylic acid on the interfacial characteristics of resin-modified glass ionomer cements

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the effect of load-cycle aging and/or 6 months artificial saliva (AS) storage on bond durability and interfacial ultramorphology of resin-modified glass ionomer cement (RMGIC) applied onto dentine air-abraded using Bioglass 45S5 (BAG) with/without polyacrylic acid (PAA) conditioning.

METHODS

RMGIC (Ionolux, VOCO) was applied onto human dentine specimens prepared with silicon-carbide abrasive paper or air-abraded with BAG with or without the use of PAA conditioning. Half of bonded-teeth were submitted to load cycling (150,000 cycles) and half immersed in deionised water for 24 h. They were cut into matchsticks and submitted immediately to microtensile bond strength (μTBS) testing or 6 months in AS immersion and subsequently μTBS tested. Results were analysed statistically by two-way ANOVA and Student-Newman-Keuls test (α = 0.05). Fractographic analysis was performed using FE-SEM, while further RMGIC-bonded specimens were surveyed for interfacial ultramorphology characterisation (dye-assisted nanoleakage) using confocal microscopy.

RESULTS

RMGIC applied onto dentine air-abraded with BAG regardless PAA showed no significant μTBS reduction after 6 months of AS storage and/or load cycling (p > 0.05). RMGIC-dentine interface showed no sign of degradation/nanoleakage after both aging regimens. Conversely, interfaces created in PAA-conditioned SiC-abraded specimens showed significant reduction in μTBS (p < 0.05) after 6 months of storage and/or load cycling with evident porosities within bonding interface.

CONCLUSIONS

Dentine pre-treatment using BAG air-abrasion might be a suitable strategy to enhance the bonding performance and durability of RMGIC applied to dentine. The use of PAA conditioner in smear layer-covered dentine may increase the risk of degradation at the bonding interface.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

A combined dentine pre-treatment using bioglass followed by PAA may increase the bond strength and maintain it stable over time. Conversely, the use of PAA conditioning alone may offer no significant contribute to the immediate and prolonged bonding performance.

Alternative Caries Management Options for Primary Molars: 2.5-Year Outcomes of a Randomised Clinical Trial

Less invasive caries management techniques for treating cavitated carious primary teeth, which involve the concept of caries control by managing the activity of the biofilm, are becoming common. This study aimed to compare the clinical efficacy (minor/major failures) and survival rates (successful cases without any failures) of 3 carious lesion treatment approaches, the Hall Technique (HT), non-restorative caries treatment (NRCT), and conventional restorations (CR), for the management of occlusoproximal caries lesions (ICDAS 3-5) in primary molars. Results at 2.5 years are presented. A total of 169 children (3- to 8-year-olds) were enrolled in this secondary care-based, 3-arm parallel-group, randomised controlled trial. Participants were allocated to: HT (n = 52; sealing caries with stainless-steel crowns without caries removal), NRCT (n = 52; opening up the cavity and applying fluoride varnish), CR (n = 65; control arm, complete caries removal and compomer restoration). Statistical analyses were: non-parametric Kruskal-Wallis analysis of variance, Mann-Whitney U test and Kaplan-Meier survival analyses. One hundred and forty-two participants (84%; HT = 40/52; NRCT = 44/52; CR = 58/65) had follow-up data of 1-33 months (mean = 26). Overall, 25 (HT = 2, NRCT = 9, CR = 14) of 142 participants (17.6%) presented with at least 1 minor failure (reversible pulpitis, caries progression, or secondary caries; p = 0.013, CI = 0.012-0.018; Mann-Whitney U test). Ten (HT = 1, NRCT = 4, CR = 5) of 142 participants (7.04%) experienced at least 1 major failure (irreversible pulpitis, abscess, unrestorable tooth; p = 0.043, CI = 0.034-0.045). Independent comparisons between 2 samples found that NRCT-CR had no statistically significant difference in failures (p > 0.05), but for CR-HT (p = 0.037, CI = 0.030-0.040) and for NRCT-HT (p = 0.011, CI = 0.010-0.016; Kruskal-Wallis test) significant differences were observed. Cumulative survival rates were HT = 92.5%, NRCT = 70.5%, and CR = 67.2% (p = 0.012). NRCT and CR outcomes were comparable. HT performed better than NRCT and CR for all outcomes. This study was funded by the Paediatric Dentistry Department, Greifswald University, Germany (Trial registration No. NCT01797458).

Materials for Paediatric Dentistry. Part 2: The Evidence

Which materials should be used to restore primary teeth? The second part in this series summarizes the current evidence base relating to this question, and describes the biological approach to caries management. CPD/Clinical Relevance: Our decisions regarding material choices should be based, where possible, on up-to-date evidence. This will help to ensure that the appropriate material is placed in the appropriate clinical scenario.

Fracture strength of restorations in proximal cavities of primary molars

This study evaluated the fracture strength of various restorative materials for primary molars in dovetail and box-only class II cavity designs. Eighty extracted noncarious human primary molars were used. The teeth were randomly divided into two groups for either dovetail or box-only preparations. The teeth were then divided into four subgroups for each restorative material: glass ionomer cement (GIC), resin-modified glass ionomer cement (RMGIC), compomer, and composite. The restorations were tested for fracture strength. The loads at fracture and fracture mode were recorded and a scanning electron microscopy analysis was performed to observe the micromorphology of the borders between the teeth and the materials. The nonparametric Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney U-tests were used. Although there were significant differences between the restorative materials (p < 0.05), there were no differences between the fracture strength of the box-only and the dovetail cavity designs in any of the groups (p > 0.05) except the composite group. The fracture strength of the compomer and composite groups was significantly higher than that of the GIC and RMGIC groups (p < 0.05). A class II cavity could be selected as dovetail or box-only and compomer and composite are more resistant to fracture than GIC and RMGIC.

Clinical Success Rate of Compomer and Amalgam Class II Restorations in First Primary Molars: A Two-year Study

Background and aims. The majority of failures in Class II amalgam restorations occur in the first primary molar teeth; in addition, use of compomer instead of amalgam for primary molar teeth restorations is a matter of concern. The aim ofthe present study was to compare the success rate of Class II compomer and amalgam restorations in the first primary molars.

Materials and methods. A total of 17 amalgams and 17 compomer restorations were placed in 17 children based on a split-mouth design. Restorations were assessed at 12- and 24-month intervals for marginal integrity, the anatomic form and recurrent caries. Data were analyzed with SPSS 11. Chi-squared test was applied for the analysis. Statistical significance was set at P<0.05.

Results. A total 34 restorations of 28 restorations (14 pairs) of the total restorations still survived after 24 months. Compomerrestorations showed significantly better results in marginal integrity. Recurrent caries was significantly lower incompomer restorations compared to amalgam restorations. Cumulative success rate at 24-month interval was significantlyhigher in compomer restorations compared to amalgam restorations. There was no statistically significant difference inanatomic form between the two materials.

Conclusion. Compomer appears to be a suitable alternative to amalgam for Class II restorations in the first primary mo-lars.

Do conventional glass ionomer cements release more fluoride than resin-modified glass ionomer cements?

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to evaluate the fluoride release of conventional glass ionomer cements (GICs) and resin-modified GICs.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The cements were grouped as follows: G1 (Vidrion R, SS White), G2 (Vitro Fil, DFL), G3 (Vitro Molar, DFL), G4 (Bioglass R, Biodinâmica), and G5 (Ketac Fil, 3M ESPE), as conventional GICs, and G6 (Vitremer, 3M ESPE), G7 (Vitro Fil LC, DFL), and G8 (Resiglass, Biodinâmica) as resin-modified GICs. Six specimens (8.60 mm in diameter; 1.65 mm in thickness) of each material were prepared using a stainless steel mold. The specimens were immersed in a demineralizing solution (pH 4.3) for 6 hr and a remineralizing solution (pH 7.0) for 18 hr a day. The fluoride ions were measured for 15 days. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Tukey's test with 5% significance were applied.

RESULTS

The highest amounts of fluoride release were found during the first 24 hr for all cements, decreasing abruptly on day 2, and reaching gradually decreasing levels on day 7. Based on these results, the decreasing scale of fluoride release was as follows: G2 > G3 > G8 = G4 = G7 > G6 = G1 > G5 (p < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

There were wide variations among the materials in terms of the cumulative amount of fluoride ion released, and the amount of fluoride release could not be attributed to the category of cement, that is, conventional GICs or resin-modified GICs.

Comparative Evaluation of Microleakage in Conventional and RMGIC Restorations following Conventional and Chemomechanical Caries Removal: An in vitro Study

Background: Conventional caries removal involves use of high-speed handpiece. Current concepts of caries excavation in cavitated lesions consist of manual excavators. Principles of minimal invasive approach indicate the need to excavate only carious tissue.

Aim: The aim of this study was to compare the microleakage in conventional and resin modified glass ionomer cement restorations following conventional and chemomechanical caries removal.

Design: Hundred class I carious human mandibular first molar s were collected and divided into two groups: I and II (50 each). Each group was further divided into subgroups, i.e. (IA, IB and IIA, IIB). Caries was completely removed using conventional method in group one and chemomechanically in group two. The teeth in group IA, IIA are restored with conventional glass ionomer comment (GIC) and in group IB, IIB restored with resign-modified glass ionomer comments (RMGIC), followed by fnishing and polishing. Subsequently, the specimens were thermocycled and then placed in dye solution. The teeth were sectioned through the restorations and evaluated for microleakage scores using a stereomicroscope. The data were analyzed using Mann-Whitney U-test.

Results: Statistical analysis showed no significant difference in microleakage between the conventional GIC and RMGIC following conventional and chemomechanical caries removal method.

Conclusion: Carisolv is minimally invasive and an effective alternative treatment for the removal of occlusal caries.

How to cite this article: Pavuluri C, Nuvvula S, Kamatham RL, Nirmala SVSG. Comparative Evaluation of Microleakage in Conventional and RMGIC Restorations following Conventional and Chemomechanical Caries Removal: An in vitro Study. Int J Clin Pediatr Dent 2014;7(3):172-175.

Survival characteristics of composite restorations in primary teeth

OBJECTIVES

This retrospective study analyzed restoration survival of composite fillings in children with at high caries risk in relation to age, sex, operator, tooth type, filling extension, and material used.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Among 667 children treated in 2004-2012 in a university setting without sedation or general anesthesia, 2388 composite fillings were included. Relevant data from regular recall intervals were retrieved from patients' records. Either total-etch or a self-etch adhesive combined with flowable and/or (nano)hybrid composite was used. The Kaplan-Meier estimator and Cox proportional hazard analysis with backward elimination model were applied for survival analysis.

RESULTS

For the observation period of 8 years (mean 1.7 years), the cumulative failure rate was 17.2 % with annual failure rates of 10.0 %. In 8.8 % of the cases, fillings failed due to secondary caries. In 8.3 % technical failure due to total filling loss, loosening, marginal gaps, or tooth fracture occurred. Tooth type, filling extension, age, operator, dental dam, and type of adhesive were significant for survival (p < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Filling survival was comparably lower to composite restorations observed in prospective clinical studies on permanent teeth and other tooth-colored restoratives used in primary teeth. Due to the very high caries risk and young age of the population, frequent loss due to secondary caries was observed. With respect to the high caries risk, composite restorations can be used to treat carious primary teeth, though a strict caries prevention regimen should be followed to minimize restoration failure.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Filling loss of composites in the primary dentition is associated with secondary caries on the long term.

Composition-structure-property relationships for non-classical ionomer cements formulated with zinc-boron germanium-based glasses

Non-classical ionomer glasses like those based on zinc-boron-germanium glasses are of special interest in a variety of medical applications owning to their unique combination of properties and potential therapeutic efficacy. These features may be of particular benefit with respect to the utilization of glass ionomer cements for minimally invasive dental applications such as the atruamatic restorative treatment, but also for expanded clinical applications in orthopedics and oral-maxillofacial surgery. A unique system of zinc-boron-germanium-based glasses (10 compositions in total) has been designed using a Design of Mixtures methodology. In the first instance, ionomer glasses were examined via differential thermal analysis, X-ray diffraction, and 11B MAS NMR spectroscopy to establish fundamental composition – structure-property relationships for the unique system. Secondly, cements were synthesized based on each glass and handling characteristics (working time, Wt, and setting time, St) and compression strength were quantified to facilitate the development of both experimental and mathematical composition-structure-property relationships for the new ionomer cements. The novel glass ionomer cements were found to provide Wt, St, and compression strength in the range of 48–132 s, 206–602 s, and 16–36 MPa, respectively, depending on the ZnO/GeO2 mol fraction of the glass phase. A lower ZnO mol fraction in the glass phase provides higher glass transition temperature, higher N4 rate, and in combination with careful modulation of GeO2 mol fraction in the glass phase provides a unique approach to extending the Wt and St of glass ionomer cement without compromising (in fact enhancing) compression strength. The data presented in this work provide valuable information for the formulation of alternative glass ionomer cements for applications within and beyond the dental clinic, especially where conventional approaches to modulating working time and strength exhibit co-dependencies (i.e. the enhancement of one property comes at the expense of the other) and therefore limit development strategies.

Caries management strategies for primary molars: 1-yr randomized control trial results

Minimal invasive approaches to managing caries, such as partial caries removal techniques, are showing increasing evidence of improved outcomes over the conventional complete caries removal. There is also increasing interest in techniques where no caries is removed. We present the 1-yr results of clinical efficacy for 3 caries management options for occlusoproximal cavitated lesions in primary molars: conventional restorations (CR; complete caries removal and compomer restoration), Hall technique (HT; no caries removal, sealing in with stainless steel crowns), and nonrestorative caries treatment (NRCT; no caries removal, opening up the cavity, teaching brushing and fluoride application). In sum, 169 children (3-8 yr old; mean, 5.56 ± 1.45 yr) were enrolled in this secondary care-based, 3-arm, parallel-group, randomized clinical trial. Treatments were carried out by specialist pediatric dentists or postgraduate trainees. One lesion per child received CR, HT, or NRCT. Outcome measures were clinical failure rates, grouped as minor failure (restoration loss/need for replacement, reversible pulpitis, caries progression, etc.) and major failure (irreversible pulpitis, abscess, etc.). There were 148 children (87.6%) with a minimum follow-up of 11 mo (mean, 12.23 ± 0.98 mo). Twenty teeth were recorded as having at least 1 minor failure: NRCT, n = 8 (5%); CR, n = 11 (7%); HT, n = 1 (1%) (p = .002, 95% CI = 0.001 to 0.003). Only the comparison between NRCT and CR showed no significant difference (p = .79, 95% CI = 0.78 to 0.80). Nine (6%) experienced at least 1 major failure: NRCT, n = 4 (2%); CR, n = 5 (3%); HT, n = 0 (0%) (p = .002, 95% CI = 0.001 to 0.003). Individual comparison of NRCT and CR showed no statistically significant difference in major failures (p = .75, 95% CI = 0.73 to 0.76). Success and failure rates were not significantly affected by pediatric dentists' level of experience (p = .13, 95% CI = 0.12 to 0.14). The HT was significantly more successful clinically than NRCT and CR after 1 yr, while pairwise analyses showed comparable results for treatment success between NRCT and CR (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01797458).

Developmental defects of enamel and dentine: challenges for basic science research and clinical management

Abnormalities of enamel and dentine are caused by a variety of interacting factors ranging from genetic defects to environmental insults. The genetic changes associated with some types of enamel and dentine defects have been mapped, and many environmental influences, including medical illnesses that can damage enamel and dentine have been identified. Developmental enamel defects may present as enamel hypoplasia or hypomineralization while dentine defects frequently demonstrate aberrant calcifications and abnormalities of the dentine-pulp complex. Clinically, developmental enamel defects often present with problems of discolouration and aesthetics, tooth sensitivity, and susceptibility to caries, wear and erosion. In contrast, dentine defects are a risk for endodontic complications resulting from dentine hypomineralization and pulpal abnormalities. The main goals of managing developmental abnormalities of enamel and dentine are early diagnosis and improvement of appearance and function by preserving the dentition and preventing complications. However, despite major advances in scientific knowledge regarding the causes of enamel and dentine defects, further research is required in order to translate the knowledge gained in the basic sciences research to accurate clinical diagnosis and successful treatment of the defects.

Long-term fluoride exchanges at restoration surfaces and effects on surface mechanical properties

Aim. The aim of the study was to determine whether three fluoride containing resin composites could maintain fluoride release, fluoride recharge, and mechanical stability over long-term (18-month) aging. Materials and Methods. Fluoride containing composites Beautifil II, Gradia Direct X, Tetric EvoCeram, and glass ionomer Fuji IX Extra were analyzed. Specimens of each material were fabricated for two test groups: Group 1: bimonthly fluoride release/recharge analysis (n = 5); Group 2: hardness and elastic modulus analysis (n = 6). Nanoindentation was employed at 24 hours and at 1, 3, 6, 12, and 18 months. After 18 months, each specimen was immersed (recharged) in 5000 ppm NaF gel, and fluoride rerelease, hardness, and elastic modulus were measured. Results. Beautifil II and Gradia Direct X maintained fluoride release and recharge capability throughout 18-month aging (Beautifil II > Gradia Direct X > Tetric EvoCeram). The fluoride rerelease from Beautifil II following a 10-minute NaF recharge (at 18 months) was comparable to the long-term fluoride release from Fuji IX Extra. Elastic modulus and hardness did not change significantly (P > 0.05) with fluoride release, recharge, and water aging over 18 months for all three analyzed composites. Conclusions. The long-term fluoride release, fluoride recharge, and mechanical property stability of Beautifil II and Gradia Direct X render these composites suitable for load bearing restorations in high caries risk patients. Clinical Relevance. The ability for Beautifil II and Gradia Direct X to maintain fluoride release and fluoride recharge capability, despite long-term aging, raises the potential for unrestored tooth surfaces in contact with Beautifil II or Gradia Direct X restorations to demonstrate a reduced rate of caries incidence compared to unrestored surfaces adjacent to conventional nonfluoride containing composites.

Developmental enamel defects in the primary dentition: aetiology and clinical management

Developmental enamel defects, presenting as enamel hypoplasia or opacities are caused by damage or disruption to the developing enamel organ as a result of inherited and acquired systemic conditions. The high prevalence of these defects in the primary dentition demonstrates the vulnerability of the teeth to changes in the pre- and postnatal environment. The presence of enamel hypoplasia increases the risk of primary teeth to early childhood caries and tooth wear as the defective enamel is thinner, more plaque retentive and less resistant to dissolution in acid compared to normal enamel. The purpose of this paper was to critically review the aetiology and clinical complications of developmental enamel defects in the primary dentition and propose recommendations for the clinical management of affected teeth.

Restorative materials in the primary dentition of poli-caries patients

BACKGROUND

Despite an overall caries decline in children, still 50-60% of carious primary teeth of 6-year-olds remain untreated, in 3-year-olds 13%. There are an increasing number of poli-caries patients with insufficiently treated primary teeth. Therefore, early treatment is fundamental.

REVIEW

The assessment and indication for the use of restorative materials can be summarized as follows: Glass ionomer cements (GIC) are associated with easy handling and high fluoride release. This makes them attractive especially for Class I cavities in uncooperative children. However, low flexural strength causes high fracture rates in Class II cavities. Further developments (viscous and resin-modified GIC) have improved handling characteristics, but conventional non-resin-modified GIC are still prone to fracture. Compomers exhibit a clear potential as an alternative to amalgam. Long-term results are good even in stress-bearing areas. The compliance of the child should at least last long enough for adhesive application. Resin composites are still the most time-consuming alternative. Under a correct application protocol, resin composites behave in a similar manner to compomers. Therefore, the effort has to be judged individually. Finally, especially in severely decayed teeth and after endodontic treatment, preformed metal crowns should be taken into account as a last and appropriate alternative to direct restorations.

CONCLUSION

Based on the high clinical success rates, compomers with self-etch adhesives can be recommended for restorative therapy in anterior and posterior primary teeth.

Restoration of class II cavities in primary molar teeth with conventional and resin modified glass ionomer cements: a systematic review of the literature

AIM

To review the literature concerning the restoration of primary teeth with glass ionomer (GIC) or resin modified glass ionomer cement (RMGI) used in conventional class II cavities.

METHODS

A search of the literature identified through Medline between 1966 and 2006 using the key words: glass ionomer, resin modified, glass polyalkenoate, deciduous/primary teeth. Studies that used ART or tunnel preparations were excluded. Papers of relevant clinical studies (prospective and retrospective) were assessed and graded using predetermined criteria. Papers were graded according to the number of criteria met as (A >90%, B1 = 75%, B2 = 50%, C <50%).

RESULTS

The search identified 411 papers, from which an application of the inclusion criteria yielded 20 studies. Of these, 2 were rated B1 and 18 B2. Failure rates varied from 6.6% to 60% for GIC, and from 2% to 24% for RMGI.

CONCLUSION

GIC cannot be recommended for class II cavities in primary molars. There is evidence that RMGIC can perform successfully in small to moderate sized class II restorations.

Survival of atraumatic restorative treatment (ART) sealants and restorations: a meta-analysis

The purpose of this study is to perform a systematic investigation plus meta-analysis into survival of atraumatic restorative treatment (ART) sealants and restorations using high-viscosity glass ionomers and to compare the results with those from the 2005 ART meta-analysis. Until February 2010, four databases were searched. Two hundred four publications were found, and 66 reported on ART restorations or sealant survival. Based on five exclusion criteria, two independent reviewers selected the 29 publications that accounted for the meta-analysis. Confidence intervals (CI) and or standard errors were calculated and the heterogeneity variance of the survival rates was estimated. Location (school/clinic) was an independent variable. The survival rates of single-surface and multiple-surface ART restorations in primary teeth over the first 2 years were 93% (CI, 91-94%) and 62% (CI, 51-73%), respectively; for single-surface ART restorations in permanent teeth over the first 3 and 5 years it was 85% (CI, 77-91%) and 80% (CI, 76-83%), respectively and for multiple-surface ART restorations in permanent teeth over 1 year it was 86% (CI, 59-98%). The mean annual dentine lesion incidence rate, in pits and fissures previously sealed using ART, over the first 3 years was 1%. No location effect and no differences between the 2005 and 2010 survival rates of ART restorations and sealants were observed. The short-term survival rates of single-surface ART restorations in primary and permanent teeth, and the caries-preventive effect of ART sealants were high.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

ART can safely be used in single-surface cavities in both primary and permanent teeth. ART sealants have a high caries preventive effect.

The longevity of different restorations in primary teeth

BACKGROUND AND AIM

This paper reviews three published papers and adds results from a fourth study which aimed to determine which restorative material would be the best alternative(s) to amalgam (AM) in primary teeth.

DESIGN

All studies had a practice-based design and were part of the routine treatment of children and adolescents. The clinicians were assigned which materials to use in a randomised matter in the first three studies which lasted for 7-8 years. In the fourth study conducted 4 years after the initial studies, the clinicians were free to select the restorative materials.

RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS

Resin modified glass ionomer (RMGI) and compomer (COM) restorations showed similar longevity compared with AM, whereas conventional GI restorations showed significantly shorter longevity. The studies indicated that the 'new and improved' materials based on in vitro tests did not always show enhanced clinical properties. In the last study, where clinicians freely selected the restorative materials they used in their practices, seven used COM, one used conventional GI materials and one used a combination of the two types of material.

Clinical evaluation of glass-ionomer tunnel restorations in primary molars: 36 months results

BACKGROUND

The purpose of this study was to clinically examine the efficacy of tunnel preparations in primary molars restored with glass-ionomer cement during a 36-month observation period.

METHODS

A total of 233 tunnel restorations were placed in primary molars of 203 patients aged 6-10 years. Restorations were evaluated after 12, 24 and 36 months using the modified USPHS criteria for secondary caries, marginal discolouration, marginal adaptation and anatomic form. The Alpha+Bravo score (except for caries) and absence of clinical signs of endodontic complications was considered as a clinical success.

RESULTS

At the end of the 36-month experimental period, the cumulative survival rate of tunnel restorations in primary molars was 72 per cent. The main reasons for failure were endodontic complications (46 per cent of the failures), secondary caries (31 per cent of the failures) and marginal ridge fractures (19 per cent of the failures).

CONCLUSIONS

The tunnel preparation filled with reinforced restorative glass-ionomer cement is a suitable treatment for minimal proximal caries lesions in primary molars.

Clinical performance of reinforced glass ionomer restorations placed in UK dental practices

AIM

To retrospectively evaluate the performance of reinforced glass ionomer restorations placed in load-bearing surfaces of posterior teeth in three UK general dental practices.

METHODS

Inclusion criteria for the participating practitioners were that they would be able to find, in their regularly attending patients' mouths, a minimum of 30 Fuji IX restorations placed in load-bearing cavities in posterior teeth. The three practitioners who agreed to participate were given training in the methods of assessment of restorations. Presence/absence of the restoration, presence of secondary caries, anatomic form, margin adaptation, margin discolouration, surface roughness and colour match were recorded.

RESULTS

Three general dental practitioners and 169 restorations in 116 patients were included in the study. Seventy-eight percent of restorations were placed in molar teeth, the remainder in premolar teeth, with 67 being Class I and 102 Class II. The mean age of restorations at examination was 25 months, ranging from five months to 56 months. Of the restorations examined, 98% (n = 166) were found to be present and intact. No secondary caries was detected clinically. Three restorations were found to have fractured.

CONCLUSION

Reinforced glass ionomer restorations placed in load-bearing situations in patients attending three dental practices in the UK were found to be performing satisfactorily at two years. Further investigations, of improved rigour, may now be indicated to more fully assess the performance of such restorations in the long term.

Flowable resin composite as a class II restorative in primary molars: A two-year clinical evaluation

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the clinical durability of flowable resin composite and resin-modified glass ionomer cement when used as class II restoratives in primary molars.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A total of 190 restorations were placed in 61 children, age in the range of 5-11 years. The restoratives, Tetric Flow, in combination with the adhesives, Excite or Prompt-L-Pop and Vitremer, were used in class II cavities in primary molars. An intra-individual study design was used and the restorations were evaluated by modified USPHS criteria over a 2-year period.

RESULTS

146 of the restorations could be evaluated at 2 years. The cumulative failure rate was 10.6% for Vitremer and 13.6% for Tetric Flow. No statistically significant differences were found in failure rates between different materials or between bonding systems. The main cause of failure for Tetric Flow was secondary caries and for Vitremer wear and dissolution.

CONCLUSIONS

Vitremer and Tetric Flow showed no significant difference concerning clinical durability at 2 years when used as class II restoratives in primary molars. Both materials demonstrated acceptable clinical results.

Clinical diagnosis of recurrent caries

BACKGROUND

The clinical diagnosis of recurrent caries is the most common reason for replacement of all types of restorations in general dental practice. Marked variations in the diagnosis of the lesions have been reported. The prevention of recurrent lesions by the use of fluoride-releasing restorative materials has not been successful.

TYPES OF STUDIES REVIEWED

The author focused on practice-based studies in the literature. These studies are not scientifically rigorous, but they reflect "real-life" dental practice. Few experimental studies on recurrent carious lesions in vivo have been reported, but bacteriological studies indicate that the etiology is similar to that of primary caries.

RESULTS

Recurrent carious lesions are most often located on the gingival margins of Class II through V restorations. Recurrent caries is rarely diagnosed on Class I restorations. The diagnosis is difficult, and it is important to differentiate recurrent carious lesions from stained margins on resin-based composite restorations. Over-hangs, even minute in size, are predisposed to plaque accumulation and the development of recurrent caries. The development of recurrent lesions is unrelated to microleakage.

CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS

As recurrent carious lesions are localized and limited, alternative treatments to restoration replacement are suggested. Polishing may be sufficient. If not, exploratory preparations into the restorative material adjacent to the localized defect can reveal the extent of the lesion. Such explorations invariably show that the lesion does not progress along the tooth-restoration interface. The defect, therefore, may be repaired in lieu of being completely replaced. Repair and refurbishing of restorations save tooth structure. These simple procedures also increase the life span of the restoration.

Class II restorations in primary teeth: 7-year study on three resin-modified glass ionomer cements and a compomer

The aim of this randomized study was to compare the longevity and cariostatic effects of 1565 class II restorations in primary teeth placed by 15 clinicians in the Danish Public Dental Health Service in 971 children, aged 3.6-14.9 yr. The restorations were performed using three resin-modified glass ionomer cements and one compomer (polyacid-modified composite resin) with and without their respective cavity conditioners. The restorations were in contact with 1023 unrestored proximal surfaces in 853 primary and 170 permanent teeth. The study was terminated after 7 yr with 1% of the restorations in function, 7% patient dropouts, 18% failed restorations, and operative treatment on 24% of the adjacent surfaces. Multivariate survival analyses showed that the restorative material and cavity conditioning influenced the survival of restorations but not the progression of caries on adjacent surfaces. The 50% survival times were estimated to exceed 5 yr for the restorations and 4.5 yr for the adjacent unfilled surfaces in all treatment groups. It was concluded that resin-modified glass ionomer cement and compomer are both appropriate materials for class II restorations in primary teeth. The differences in longevity and cariostatic effects among the four materials used with and without conditioner were less than the intra-individual differences between clinicians.