ART with high viscosity GIC and composite restorations in class II cavities: can they thrive in the post-amalgam era?

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.

Twelve-month evaluation of the atraumatic restorative treatment approach for class III restorations: An interventional study

BACKGROUND

Atraumatic restorative treatment (ART) may be appropriate for populations without accessibility and affordability. More data are required regarding the success rate of ART in anterior teeth.

AIM

To evaluate the clinical performance of restoring class III cavities in anterior teeth of permanent dentition using the ART approach.

METHODS

A longitudinal interventional field study was carried out at two rural primary health centers, Tumkur district, India. A total of 54 teeth in 39 patients were evaluated for the survival rate of class III restorations in permanent anterior teeth using the ART approach in children and adult populations. Evaluation of ART restoration was carried out using Frencken J criteria, the mean procedure time, patient acceptance and reported pain severity during the ART approach were evaluated using a visual analog scale. Calculation of the cost of ART was also performed.

RESULTS

The mean time taken to perform the ART procedure was 14.79 ± 5.8 min with the majority of patients reporting only mild pain. At 6 mo follow-up, 72.2% remained in a good state, but this reduced to 27% at 12 mo. The cumulative survival rate of the restorations was 94.4% at 6 mo and 80.9% at 12 mo follow-up. Estimation of the direct cost for a single class III restoration was 186.50 INR (2.64 USD).

CONCLUSION

ART may be a good comprehensive option for basic oral health care for underserved or inaccessible populations, and preventive care for patients.