Randomised trial of resin-based restorations in Class I and Class II beveled preparations in primary molars: 48-Month results

Clinical efficacy of bioactive restorative materials in controlling secondary caries: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

This systematic review and network meta-analysis aimed to compare the clinical efficacy of bioactive and conventional restorative materials in controlling secondary caries (SC) and to provide a classification of these materials according to their effectiveness.

METHODS

A search was performed in Pubmed, Web of Science, Embase, BBO, Lilacs, Cochrane Library, Scopus, IBECS and gray literature. Clinical trials were included, with no language or publication date limitations. Paired and network meta-analyses were performed with random-effects models, comparing treatments of interest and classifying them according to effectiveness in the permanent and deciduous dentition and at 1-year or 2/more years of follow-up. The risk of bias and certainty of evidence were evaluated.

RESULTS

Sixty-two studies were included in the qualitative syntheses and 39 in the quantitative ones. In permanent teeth, resin composite (RC) (RR = 2.00; 95%CI = 1.10, 3.64) and amalgam (AAG) (RR = 1.79; 95%CI = 1.04, 3.09) showed a higher risk of SC than Glass Ionomer Cement (GIC). In the deciduous teeth, however, a higher risk of SC was observed with RC than with AAG (RR = 2.46; 95%CI = 1.42, 4.27) and in GIC when compared to Resin-Modified Glass Ionomer Cement (RMGIC = 1.79; 95%CI = 1.04, 3.09). Most randomized clinical trials studies showed low or moderate risk of bias.

CONCLUSION

There is a difference between bioactive restorative materials for SC control, with GIC being more effective in the permanent teeth and the RMGIC in the deciduous teeth. Bioactive restorative materials can be adjuvants in the control of SC in patients at high risk for caries.

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.

Influence of Matrix Type on Marginal Gap Formation of Deep Class II Bulk-Fill Composite Restorations

Background: To test the hypothesis that transparent matrices result in more continuous margins of bulk-fill composite (BFC) restorations than metal matrices. Methods: Forty standardized MOD cavities in human molars with cervical margins in enamel and dentin were created and randomly assigned to four restorative treatment protocols: conventional nanohybrid composite (NANO) restoration (Tetric EvoCeram, Ivoclar Vivadent, Schaan, Liechtenstein) with a metal matrix (NANO-METAL) versus transparent matrix (NANO-TRANS), and bulk-fill composite restoration (Tetric EvoCeram Bulk Fill, Ivoclar Vivadent, Schaan, Liechtenstein) with a metal matrix (BFC-METAL) versus transparent matrix (BFC-TRANS). After artificial aging (2500 thermal cycles), marginal quality was evaluated by scanning electron microscopy using the replica technique. Statistical analyses were performed using the Mann−Whitney U-test and Wilcoxon test. The level of significance was p < 0.05. Results: Metal matrices yielded significantly (p = 0.0011) more continuous margins (46.211%) than transparent matrices (27.073%). Differences in continuous margins between NANO (34.482%) and BFC (38.802%) were not significant (p = 0.56). Matrix type did not influence marginal gap formation in BFC (p = 0.27) but did in NANO restorations (p = 0.001). Conclusion: Metal matrices positively influence the marginal quality of class II composite restorations, especially in deep cavity areas. The bulk-fill composite seems to be less sensitive to the influence of factors such as light polymerization and matrix type.

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.

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.

Qual material possui maior longevidade em molares decíduos: resina composta ou cimento de ionômero de vidro ? – Revisão sistemática da literatura

Introdução: Diversos materiais restauradores são indicados para a restauração de dentes decíduos posteriores, como amálgama, resina composta, cimento de ionômero de vidro convencional, cimento de ionômero de vidro modificado por resina e resinas compostas modificadas com poliácidos (compômeros). Entretanto, uma dúvida ainda persiste quanto ao desempenho clínico do cimento de ionômero de vidro, em decorrência de suas propriedades, para ser utilizado como material restaurador definitivo em molares decíduos. Objetivo: Realizar uma revisão sistemática da literatura acerca da taxa de sobrevivência de restaurações realizadas em molares decíduos utilizando resina composta e cimento de ionômero de vidro, buscando com base em evidências científicas, responder a PICO question: “Qual material possui maior longevidade em molares decíduos: resina composta ou cimento de ionômero de vidro?”. Material e métodos: Para este fim foram realizadas buscas em duas bases de dados, PubMed e Web of Science, utilizando uma estratégia de busca previamente determinada, para selecionar artigos de acordo com critérios de inclusão e exclusão criados para esse trabalho por dois examinadores calibrados. Resultados: A seleção dos artigos foi realizada de acordo com o fluxograma do PRISMA e foi criada uma tabela para avaliação qualitativa dos artigos selecionados. Foram encontrados 398 artigos na base de dados PubMed e 375 na Web of Science, sendo 153 coincidentes em ambas. Quarenta e seis artigos foram selecionados para leitura completa, dentre eles 42 foram excluídos, e quatro artigos foram incluídos para esta revisão. Conclusão: Após leitura crítica dos mesmos pode-se concluir que a resina composta demonstrou melhor desempenho clínico, ao longo do tempo, em molares decíduos comparados ao cimento de ionômero de vidro.

Efficacy of conventional treatment with composite resin and atraumatic restorative treatment in posterior primary teeth: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial

INTRODUCTION

Despite the widespread acceptance of conventional treatment using composite resin in primary teeth, there is limited evidence that this approach is the best option in paediatric clinics. Atraumatic restorative treatment (ART) using high-viscosity glass ionomer cement has gradually become more popular because it performs well in clinical studies, is easy to handle and is patient friendly. Therefore, the aim of this randomised clinical trial study is to compare the restoration longevity of conventional treatment using composite resin with that of ART in posterior primary teeth. As secondary outcomes, cost-efficacy and patient self-reported discomfort will also be tested.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

Children aged 3-6 years presenting with at least one occlusal and/or occlusal-proximal cavity will be randomly assigned to one of two groups according to the dental treatment: ART (experimental group) or composite resin restoration (control group). The dental treatment will be performed at a dental care trailer located in an educational complex in Barueri/SP, Brazil. The unit of randomisation will be the child. A sample size of 240 teeth with occlusal cavities and 188 teeth with occlusal-proximal cavities has been calculated. The primary outcome will be restoration longevity, which will be clinically assessed after 6, 12, 18 and 24 months by two examiners. The duration of the dental treatment and the cost of all materials used will be considered when estimating the cost-efficacy of each treatment. Individual discomfort will be measured after each dental procedure using the Facial Scale of Wong-Baker.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This clinical trial was approved by the local ethics committee from the Faculty of Dentistry of the University of São Paulo (registration no. 1.556.018). Participants will be included after their legal guardians have signed an informed consent form containing detailed information about the research.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

www.clinicaltrials.gov, NCT02562456; Pre-results.

Re-interventions after restoring teeth-Mining an insurance database

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to examine re-interventions after restorative treatment.

METHODS

The data was collected from the digital database of a major German national health insurance company. Only permanent teeth were observed. Placing a permanent restoration other than a crown regardless of involved surfaces and material was the study intervention. The data did not allow for a differentiation between fillings and inlays that were estimated only a very small portion of the restorations. Success was defined as not undergoing any restorative re-intervention with fillings or inlays on the same tooth (primary outcome) and assessed with Kaplan-Meier survival analyses over four years. An additional analysis was conducted rating "crowning" and "extraction" of respective teeth as target events. Differences were tested with the Log-Rank-test. A multivariate Cox regression analyses was carried out.

RESULTS

A total of 17,024,344 restorations placed in 4,825,408 anterior teeth and 9,973,177 posterior teeth could be traced. Focussing on the primary outcome re-intervention, the cumulative four-year success rate was 69.9% for one surface restorations, 74.8% for two surface restorations, 66.6% for three surface restorations and 61.0% for four surface and more extended restorations. These differences were significant (p<0.0001). Focussing on all three target events re-intervention, crowning and extraction, the cumulative four-year success rate was 66.1% for one surface restorations, 67.5% for two surface restorations, 63.0% for three surface restorations and 55.8% for four surface and more extended restorations. The number of restoration surfaces as well as the tooth position remained significant in the multivariate Cox regression.

CONCLUSIONS

The sustainability of restorative dental treatment under the terms and conditions of the German national health insurance system shows room for improvement. From a public health perspective, special focus should be laid on primary and secondary prevention to minimize the restorative treatment need.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE STATEMENT

This study shows that re-interventions are observed regularly after restorative treatment. Therefore, preventive and restorative strategies should be revisited and optimised.

Randomized Clinical Trial of Composite Restorations in Primary Teeth: Effect of Adhesive System after Three Years

The purpose of this study was to assess the clinical performance of composite restorations placed with different adhesive systems in primary teeth. In 32 patients, 128 composite restorations were placed using a split-mouth design as follows (4 groups/patient): three-step etch-and-rinse (Group 1), two-step etch-and-rinse (Group 2), two-step self-etch (Group 3), and one-step self-etch (Group 4). The restorations were clinically evaluated at baseline and at 6, 18, and 36 months according to the FDI criteria. There was no significant difference between the adhesive systems in retention of the restorations (p > 0.05). Over time, there was a statistically significant decrease in marginal adaptation in all groups, whereas surface and marginal staining significantly increased in Groups 3 and 4 (p < 0.05). The etch-and-rinse adhesive systems resulted in better marginal adaptation than the self-etch adhesive systems (p < 0.05). It was concluded that preetching of the primary enamel might help improve the clinical performance of the self-etch adhesive systems in primary teeth.

Adhesive systems for restoring primary teeth: a systematic review and meta-analysis of in vitro studies

AIM

To systematically review the literature for in vitro studies that evaluated the immediate or after ageing bond strength of etch-and-rinse and self-etch adhesive systems to enamel and dentin of primary teeth.

DESIGN

The search was conducted in PubMed/MEDLINE, Cochrane, SciELO, Lilacs, and Scopus databases with no publication year or language limits, following the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) statement. From 459 potentially eligible studies, 39 were selected for full-text analysis, and 5 were identified in reference lists, with 36 considered in the meta-analysis. Two reviewers independently selected the studies, extracted the data, and assessed the risk of bias. Pooling bond strength data was calculated using random effects analysis method, comparing two categories of adhesives (etch-and-rinse versus self-etch systems) when applied in different types and conditions of substrate (α  =  0.05).

RESULTS

No statistical significant difference in bond strength between both categories was observed in caries-affected dentin at immediate evaluation and in sound dentin after ageing. Etch-and-rinse adhesives, however, performed better in sound enamel and dentin substrates considering immediate bond strength. None study assessed the long-term adhesive effectiveness to sound or demineralized enamel.

CONCLUSION

Although the articles included in this meta-analysis showed high heterogeneity and high risk of bias, the in vitro literature suggests superior performance of etch-and-rinse adhesives in primary teeth in comparison with self-etch systems.

Materials for Paediatric Dentistry. Part 1: Background to the Treatment of Carious Primary Teeth

Dental caries is a disease that affects many people, including children, and presents numerous challenges to healthcare providers. As clinicians it is important that we consider the advantages and disadvantages of treating carious primary teeth, and make an informed decision about when it is appropriate or not. This paper describes the background to the treatment of carious primary teeth, looking at the differences between primary and permanent teeth, and the relevance of this. It also suggests points to consider when looking at restoration survival studies, as the ability to appraise the literature critically is important for us all in this 'evidence-based' age. CPD/Clinical Relevance: Our early life experiences have the ability to shape our future attitudes and behaviour. Children with carious teeth require careful management so that pain and suffering is minimized, and positive attitudes towards dentistry are fostered.

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.

Risk factors for secondary caries in direct composite restorations in primary teeth

BACKGROUND

Secondary caries or caries adjacent to restorations is the most frequent reason for replacement of dental restorations. Though, limited data is available on variables influencing the development of secondary caries in primary teeth.

AIM

To investigate risk factors for the development of secondary caries adjacent to direct composite restorations in primary teeth.

DESIGN

For this retrospective study, data of 2417 composite restorations, which were placed due to primary carious lesions, were considered. A total of 212 restorations failed due to secondary caries within a maximum observation period of 8 years. A control group was randomly selected. Mann-Whitney U-test, binomial logistic regression with backward elimination and Cox regression with frailty model were performed (P < 0.05).

RESULTS

The overall caries experience amounted to 6.3 dmft and 13.3 dmfs. 72.5% of restorations failed within the first 2 years. Older children and children from families with a higher socio-economic status showed a lower risk for secondary caries. Further, the dentist and the adhesive had a significant influence on the longevity. Posterior restorations had a higher risk to fail in comparison with anterior restorations.

CONCLUSIONS

Within the limitation of this study, it is concluded that the development of secondary caries is influenced by several factors. Nevertheless, the secondary caries rate was found to be relatively low in this high-risk population.

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.

The effect of clinical performance on the survival estimates of direct restorations

Objectives

In most retrospective studies, the clinical performance of restorations had not been considered in survival analysis. This study investigated the effect of including the clinically unacceptable cases according to modified United States Public Health Service (USPHS) criteria into the failed data on the survival analysis of direct restorations as to the longevity and prognostic variables.

Materials and Methods

Nine hundred and sixty-seven direct restorations were evaluated. The data of 204 retreated restorations were collected from the records, and clinical performance of 763 restorations in function was evaluated according to modified USPHS criteria by two observers. The longevity and prognostic variables of the restorations were compared with a factor of involving clinically unacceptable cases into the failures using Kaplan-Meier survival analysis and Cox proportional hazard model.

Results

The median survival times of amalgam, composite resin and glass ionomer were 11.8, 11.0 and 6.8 years, respectively. Glass ionomer showed significantly lower longevity than composite resin and amalgam. When clinically unacceptable restorations were included into the failure, the median survival times of them decreased to 8.9, 9.7 and 6.4 years, respectively.

Conclusions

After considering the clinical performance, composite resin was the only material that showed a difference in the longevity (p < 0.05) and the significantly higher relative risk of student group than professor group disappeared in operator groups. Even in the design of retrospective study, clinical evaluation needs to be included.

Morphological analysis of proximal contacts in class II direct restorations with 3D image reconstruction

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the proximal contact on class II composite restorations constructed using various restorative approaches by a morphological analysis.

METHODS

Sixty plastic premolar teeth were prepared for class II cavities. These teeth were divided into six groups and restored using different materials and matrix systems. Two composite materials used were a microhybrid composite Filtek Z100 (3M/ESPE) and a packable composite P60 (3M/ESPE). Three interproximal matrix systems were two circumferential metal matrices (0.05 mm and 0.03 mm thin, respectively) combined with a Tofflemire retainer, and a pre-contoured sectional matrix system (Palodent). The contact morphologies of the restorations were visually inspected with regard to their buccolinugal and mesiodistal aspects. The contact tightness was measured by inserting different amounts of metal strips. For quantitatively morphologic analysis, three-dimensional (3D) scans of proximal contacts were performed. The results were analysed with two-way ANOVA and the Tukey test.

RESULTS

Under visual observation, contact surfaces in sectional matrix groups showed anatomic profile but concave in the centre, whilst the circumferential matrix groups showed flat profiles. The sectional matrix improved the contact tightness. The 3D analysis revealed that the matrix system was correlated with the contact morphology, since the sectional matrix generated significantly deeper and wider surface concavity.

CONCLUSIONS

All the interproximal matrix systems presented some deficiency in either the contact tightness or contours. Although the sectional matrix system enhanced contact tightness, it caused contact concavity by formation of interproximal marginal overhang. The quantitative morphologic analysis helps to examine improper proximal contact and the associated problems.