Scoping review of trials evaluating adhesive strategies in pediatric dentistry: where do simplified strategies lie?

Two-year clinical and radiographic evaluation of ACTIVA BioACTIVE versus Compomer (Dyract® eXtra) in the restoration of class-2 cavities of primary molars: a non-inferior split-mouth randomised clinical trial

OBJECTIVES

The trial aimed to compare the clinical performance and radiographic success of ACTIVA BioACTIVE versus Compomer in restoring class-II cavities of primary molars.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A non-inferior split-mouth design was considered. A pre-calculated sample size of 96 molars (48 per group) with class-2 cavities of twenty-one children whose ages ranged from 5 to 10 years were randomly included in the trial. Pre-operative Plaque Index (PI), DMFT/dmft scores and the time required to fill the cavity were recorded. Over 24 months, the teeth were clinically evaluated every six months and radiographically every 12 months by two calibrated and blinded evaluators using the United States public health service (USPHS)-Ryge criteria. The two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference in success rate was considered to assess non-inferiority, and the margin was set at -18%. The linear mixed model and Firth's logistic regression model were used for data analysis (P < 0.05).

RESULTS

After 24 months, 86 teeth (43 per group) were evaluated. The mean PI score was 1.1(± 0.9), while DMFT/dmft was 0.35 (± 0.74) and 6.55 (± 2.25) respectively. The clinical and radiographic success rate of Dyract vs. ACTIVA was 95.3% and 88.3% vs. 93% and 86%, respectively. The two-sided 95% CI for the difference in success rate (-2.3%) was - 3.2 to 1.3% and didn't reach the predetermined margin of -18% which had been anticipated as the non-inferiority margin. Clinically, ACTIVA had a significantly better colour match (P = 0.002) but worse marginal discolouration (P = 0.0143). There were no significant differences regarding other clinical or radiographic criteria (P > 0.05). ACTIVA took significantly less placement time than Dyract, with a mean difference of 2.37 (± 0.63) minutes (P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

The performance of ACTIVA was not inferior to Dyract and both materials had a comparable high clinical and radiographic performance in children with high-caries experience. ACTIVA had a significantly better colour match but more marginal discolouration. It took significantly less time to be placed in the oral cavity.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov on 4 May 2018 (#NCT03516838).

Bulk-Fill Resins versus Conventional Resins: An Umbrella Review

Currently, composite resins have become the material of choice for the restoration of posterior teeth. Although bulk-fill resins represent a tempting alternative due to their lower complexity and faster use, some dentists are reluctant to use this material. The objective is to compare the performance of bulk-fill resins and conventional resins in direct restorations of posterior teeth based on the literature. The databases that were used to carry out the research were PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Library and the WOS. This umbrella literature review complies with PRISMA standards and assesses the quality of studies using the AMSTAR 2 tool. With the application of the criteria of the AMSTAR 2 tool, the reviews were considered low to moderate. The overall meta-analysis, although without statistical significance, favours mostly the use of conventional resin, as it is about five times more likely to obtain a favourable result than bulk-fill resin. Bulk-fill resins result in a simplification of the clinical process of posterior direct restorations, which is an advantage. The performance in terms of several properties of bulk-fill resins and conventional resins showed that they present similar behaviour.

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

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

Determination of Dental Adhesive Composition throughout Solvent Drying and Polymerization Using ATR-FTIR Spectroscopy

The of this study aim was to develop a rapid method to determine the chemical composition, solvent evaporation rates, and polymerization kinetics of dental adhesives. Single-component, acetone-containing adhesives One-Step (OS; Bisco, Anaheim, CA, USA), Optibond Universal (OU; Kerr, Brea, CA, USA), and G-Bond (GB; GC, Tokyo, Japan) were studied. Filler levels were determined gravimetrically. Monomers and solvents were quantified by comparing their pure Attenuated Total Reflectance-Fourier Transform Infra-Red (ATR-FTIR) spectra, summed in different ratios, with those of the adhesives. Spectral changes at 37 °C, throughout passive evaporation for 5 min, then polymerisation initiated by 20 s, and blue light emitting diode (LED) (600 mW/cm²) exposure (n = 3) were determined. Evaporation and polymerisation extent versus time and final changes were calculated using acetone (1360 cm^-1) and methacrylate (1320 cm^-1) peaks. OS, OU, and GB filler contents were 0, 9.6, and 5.3%. FTIR suggested OS and OU were Bis-GMA based, GB was urethane dimethacrylate (UDMA) based, and that each had a different diluent and acidic monomers and possible UDMA/acetone interactions. Furthermore, initial acetone percentages were all 40-50%. After 5 min drying, they were 0% for OS and OU but 10% for GB. Whilst OS had no water, that in OU declined from 18 to 10% and in GB from 25 to 20% upon drying. Evaporation extents were 50% of final levels at 23, 25, and 113 s for OS, OU, and GB, respectively. Polymerisation extents were all 50 and 80% of final levels before 10 and at 20 s of light exposure, respectively. Final monomer polymerisation levels were 68, 69, and 88% for OS, OU, and GB, respectively. An appreciation of initial and final adhesive chemistry is important for understanding the properties. The rates of evaporation and polymerisation provide indications of relative required drying and light cure times. UDMA/acetone interactions might explain the considerably greater drying time of GB.