A study on the survival of primary molars with intact and with defective restorations

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].

Subjective versus objective, polymer bur-based selective carious tissue removal: 2-year randomized clinical trial

OBJECTIVES

We aimed to compare subjective (S) selective carious tissue removal using hand instruments versus objective (O) removal using a self-limiting polymer bur in a single-blind cluster-randomized controlled superiority trial.

METHODS

115 children (aged 7-8 years) with ≥1 vital primary molar with a deep dentin lesion (>1/2 dentin depth) were included and randomized (60 S/55 O); all eligible molars in a child were treated identically (91 S/86 O). Cavities were prepared and carious tissue on pulpal walls selectively removed using hand instruments (S) or a self-limiting polymer bur (Polybur P1, Komet), followed by restoration using a glass hybrid material (Equia Forte, GC). Treatment time and satisfaction data have been reported in a 1-year-interim report. We here report on 2 year survival (tooth retained with or without further retreatments being needed, or tooth exfoliated), analyzed using multi-level Cox-regression analysis, as well as success (ART criteria 0/1, no pulpal complications, no re-intervention needed, or tooth extraction).

RESULTS

71 restorations in S and 65 in O were examined after a mean (SD, range) of 22 (11; 3-31) months, of which 50 S and 48 O restorations were successful and 70 S and 65 O survived. The majority of failures were restorative, not pulpal, and distribution of ART codes was not significant different between groups. Risk of failure was not significantly associated with the removal protocol (HR; 95 % CI: 0.95; 0.51-1.78), and also not age, sex or dental arch, while single surfaced restorations showed significantly lower hazard (0.14; 0.06-0.37).

CONCLUSION

There was no significant difference in success or survival between objective and subjective carious tissue removal.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

In primary teeth, subjective selective excavation had no disadvantage compared with objective excavation, which required a separate instrument (polymer-based bur) for carious tissue removal. Polymer-based burs may be particularly useful when standardized excavation is needed.

Does treating proximal cavities in primary molars non-restoratively affect intra-arch space and alignment of successor teeth negatively? A 4-year longitudinal study

Background

Removing plaque with toothbrush and toothpaste from proximal cavities in primary molars without restoring them follows sound cariological principles. But does this treatment affect space for and alignment of their permanent successors negatively?

Hypothesis

There is no difference in impaction and displacement of the premolars, as well as in the D+E space in quadrants with three different statuses of the proximal surface of primary molars over a 4-year period.

Methods

A total of 936 quadrants (466 maxillary and 470 mandibular quadrants) in 233 children were assessed. Treatment of cavities in the proximal surfaces of the primary molars consisted of amalgam and ART restorations using high-viscosity glass-ionomer cement, and cleaning of open large- and medium-sized cavities with toothbrush and toothpaste (UCT) under supervision for 220 days per year over 3 years. Dental casts were made at baseline, and after two, three, and 4 years. The D+E spaces were measured digitally. Status of the proximal surface of the primary molars was assessed by two calibrated examiners, and quadrants were grouped into normal anatomy, defective restoration, and proximal cavity. ANCOVA, ANOVA and LSD tests were applied.

Results

There was a statistically significant difference between groups (p <= 0.001) and between evaluation times (p < 0.001), for the D+E space in both the maxilla and mandible. A sex difference related to the D+E space in the maxilla was found (p = 0.007). For boys, quadrants in the maxilla of the group 'proximal cavity' showed a significant shorter D+E space when compared to quadrants of the group 'normal anatomy' at the 3- and 4-year evaluation time. For girls the difference between the two groups was only present at the 3-year evaluation time. There was no significant difference between the D+E space in quadrants with defective restorations and those with normal anatomy in the mandible and in the maxilla. Displacement and impaction of the premolars showed no significant difference between groups.

Conclusion

Primary molars with open proximal cavities that are cleaned with toothbrush and toothpaste do not result in displacement and impaction of the successor teeth, neither do primary molars with defective restorations in proximal tooth surfaces.

How French dentists manage defective restorations: Evidence from ReCOL the French dental practice-based research network--A survey study

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this study was to describe the knowledge, opinions and practices about the defective restoration (DR) management of French general dental practitioners (GDPs).

METHODS

A cross-sectional, online survey-based study was carried out amongst 378 GDPs - members of the dental practice-based research network in France (ReCOL). Bivariate comparisons were made using Fisher's exact test to assess the association of the respondent characteristics (age, gender…) with the decision to repair DRs, and responses to clinical cases.

RESULTS

The response rate was 82.9%. 50.4% of the respondents declared they at least sometimes consider DRs repair in their clinical practice instead of DRs total replacement. For the 89.8% who at least rarely repaired DRs, the main characteristic determining the therapeutic strategy was the defect size (71%, mainly inclined to repair small defects), followed by the defect type (marginal defect or crack for more than 60% of the respondents) and the material of initial restoration (composite for 63.5%). When shown clinical photographs illustrating DRs, most of respondents proposed a replacement with inlay/onlay or crown.

CONCLUSIONS

This study indicates that a significant proportion of French GDPs do not make sufficient use of DR repair on a routine basis. A lack of knowledge of the concept seems to explain at least part of this situation. Collective and individual efforts from the profession are still needed to promote DR repair and therefore more often apply MinimalIntervention Dentistry.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

This survey shows that MID is not yet sufficiently used in routine practice in France regarding DR management. Further efforts (continuing education toward MID, public funding revaluation for MID strategies…) are needed to help GDPs to implement MID into everyday practice.

Factors affecting success rate of atraumatic restorative treatment (ART) restorations in children: A systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

Aim of this systematic review was to summarize the factors that affect the success rate of atraumatic restorative treatment (ART) restorations in children.

DATA/SOURCES

Two independent reviewers conducted a literature search in the databases PubMed, Medline and Web of Science until October 2019 with no initial time limit. Articles reporting on clinical outcomes of ART restorations placed in children were included.

STUDY SELECTION

A total of 67 articles were included in this review reporting on clinical outcomes of ART restorations placed in children in 47 studies. The overall estimated success rate and 95 % confidence interval (CI) of ART restorations were 0.71 (0.65-0.77) and 0.67 (0.56-0.78) at the 12-month and the 24-month follow-up, respectively. Operator was one of the significant factors associated with the success rate of ART restorations. ART restorations placed by dental students/therapists had a significantly lower success rate compared with those placed by dentists. Besides, type of restoration (single-surface vs. multiple-surface restoration) was also associated with the success rate of ART restorations. Other factors including dentition, restorative material, clinical setting, and moisture control method had no significant influence on the success rate of ART restorations in children.

CONCLUSION

It is concluded that ART approach can be used to manage cavitated caries lesions in children. Operator and type of restoration are significant factors influencing the success rate of ART restorations.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

This study provides valuable information on the factors that affect success rate of ART restorations in children, which helps clinicians to make informed decisions on provision of ART restorations in children.

Subjective versus objective, polymer bur-based selective carious tissue removal: 1-year interim analysis of a randomized clinical trial

We aimed to compare subjective (S) vs. objective (O) selective carious tissue removal using hand-excavation versus a self-limiting polymer bur, respectively. A community-based single-blind cluster-randomized controlled superiority trial was performed. This is a 1-year-interim analysis. 115 children (age 7-8 years) with ≥1 vital primary molar with a deep dentin lesion (>1/2 dentin depth) were included (60 S/55 O). The cluster was the child, with eligible molars being treated identically (91 S/86 O). Cavities were prepared and carious tissue on pulpo-proximal walls selectively removed using hand instruments (S), or a self-limiting polymer bur (Polybur P1, Komet). Cavities were restored using glass-hybrid material (Equia Forte, GC). Treatment times and children's satisfaction were recorded. Generalized-linear models (GLM) and multi-level Cox-regression analysis were applied. Initial treatment times were not significantly different between protocols (mean; 95%CI S: 433; 404-462 sec; O: 412; 382-441 sec; p = 0.378/GLM). There was no significant difference in patients' satisfaction (p = 0.164). No pulpal exposures occurred. 113 children were re-examined. Failures occurred in 22/84 O-molars (26.2%) and 26/90 S-molars (28.9%). Pulpal complications occurred in 5(6%) O and 2(2.2%) S molars, respectively. Risk of failure was not significantly associated with the removal protocol, age, sex, dental arch or tooth type (p > 0.05/Cox), but was nearly 5-times higher in multi-surface than single-surface restorations (HR: 4.60; 95% CI: 1.70-12.4). Within the limitations of this interim analysis, there was no significant difference in treatment time, satisfaction and risk of failure between O and S.

Prevalence of defective restorations and factors associated with re-intervention in primary teeth: A retrospective university-based study

AIM

This retrospective study investigated the prevalence of defective restorations in a public dental service and factors associated with re-intervention in primary teeth.

DESIGN

The sample consisted of all clinical records (census) of children presenting restorations in primary teeth, who had undergone dental treatment in a public set during 1-year period. For analysis, only restorations presenting defects related to esthetic, functional, or biological reasons at first clinical examination were included. The outcome 'Success' was set when the restoration received no treatment (monitored), refurbishing, sealing of margins, or was repaired. Otherwise, 'Failure' was set whenever the restoration was either replaced or if another treatment affecting the restoration was necessary (endodontic treatment or tooth extraction). Poisson regression model was used to assess the prevalence of patient- and tooth-related factors that may influence the re-intervention decision (repair or replacement).

RESULTS

From a total of 302 restorations placed in 114 children, 37.7% presented some type of defect. Restorations with recurrent caries were more frequently present in caries-active patients (P = 0.03) and were frequently replaced (95% CI, 1.05-3.22, RR = 1.84, P = 0.03).

CONCLUSION

Presence of recurrent caries influences the re-intervention decision, leading to restoration replacement in most cases.

Repair increases the survival of failed primary teeth restorations in high-caries risk children: a university-based retrospective study

OBJECTIVES

We investigated factors associated with failure of adhesive restorations in primary teeth and whether repair may increase the survival of failed restorations placed in high-caries risk children.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The sample comprised children who attended a university dental service to perform restorative treatment in primary teeth. Data were collected retrospectively from clinical records to assess the longevity of restorations. The outcomes were calculated in two levels: "Success" (Level 1)-when any re-intervention was considered as failure; "Survival" (Level 2)-when repaired restorations were considered clinically acceptable. The Kaplan-Meier survival test was used to analyze the longevity of restorations. Multivariate Cox regression with shared frailty was used to assess factors associated with failures (p < 0.05).

RESULTS

A total of 584 primary teeth restorations (178 patients) were included in the analysis. The longevity of restorations up to 36 months (Level 1) was 34.8% (AFR 29.6%). Multi-surface restorations showed significantly more failures than single-surface ones (HR 1.69; 95% CI 1.18, 2.41), and endodontically treated teeth presented more failures compared to vital teeth (HR 2.22; 95% CI 1.35, 3.65). There was an increase in restoration survival when repair was not considered as failure (p < 0.001). The survival of repaired restorations (Level 2) reached 43.7% (AFR 24.1%).

CONCLUSIONS

Adhesive restorations placed in primary teeth of high-caries risk children showed restricted longevity; however, the repair of failed restorations has increased its survival over time.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Repair is a more conservative and technically simple procedure that increases the survival of failed restorations in primary teeth.

Survival percentages of atraumatic restorative treatment (ART) restorations and sealants in posterior teeth: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

The aim of the present study is to update the results of two previous meta-analyses, published in 2006 and 2012, on the survival percentages of atraumatic restorative treatment (ART) restorations and ART sealants. The current meta-analysis includes Chinese publications not investigated before.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Until February 2017, six databases were interrogated (two English, one Portuguese, one Spanish and two Chinese). Using six exclusion criteria, a group of six independent reviewers selected 43 publications from a total of 1958 potentially relevant studies retrieved. Confidence intervals and/or standard errors were calculated and the heterogeneity variance of the survival rates was estimated.

RESULTS

The survival percentages and standard errors of single-surface and multiple-surface ART restorations in primary posterior teeth over the first 2 years were 94.3% (± 1.5) and 65.4% (± 3.9), respectively; for single-surface ART restorations in permanent posterior teeth over the first 3 years, they were 87.1% (± 3.2); and for multiple-surface ART restorations in permanent posterior teeth over the first 5 years, they were 77% (± 9.0). The mean annual dentine-carious-lesion-failure percentages in previously sealed pits and fissures using ART sealants in permanent posterior teeth over the first 3 and 5 years were 0.9 and 1.9%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

ART single-surface restorations presented high survival percentages in both primary and permanent posterior teeth, whilst ART multiple-surface restorations presented lower survival percentages. ART sealants presented a high-caries-preventive effect.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

ART is an effective evidence-based option for treating and preventing carious lesions in primary and permanent posterior teeth.