Interest in a new test for caries risk in adolescents undergoing orthodontic treatment

Microhybrid versus nanofill composite in combination with a three step etch and rinse adhesive in occlusal cavities: five year results

Objectives

The aim of the study was to evaluate the 5-year clinical performance of occlusal carious restorations using nanofill and microhybrid composites, in combination with 3-step etch-and-rinse adhesives, in patients who were going to commence orthodontic treatment.

Materials and Methods

A total of 118 restorations for occlusal caries were conducted prior to orthodontic treatment. Occlusal restorations were performed both with Filtek Supreme XT (3M ESPE) and Filtek Z250 (3M ESPE) before beginning orthodontic treatment with fixed orthodontic bands. Restorations were clinically evaluated at baseline and at 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5-year recalls.

Results

None of the microhybrid (Filtek Z250) and nanofill (Filtek Supreme XT) composite restorations was clinically unacceptable with respect to color match, marginal discoloration, wear or loss of anatomical form, recurrent caries, marginal adaptation, or surface texture. A 100% success rate was recorded for both composite materials. There were no statistically significant differences in any of the clinical evaluation criteria between Filtek Z250 and Filtek Supreme XT restorations for each evaluation period.

Conclusions

The composite restorations showed promising clinical results relating to color matching, marginal discoloration, wear or loss of anatomical form, recurrent caries, marginal adaptation, and surface texture at the end of the 5-year evaluation period.

Influence of sport mouthguards on the ecological factors of the children oral cavity

BACKGROUND

The use of fixed and/or removable dental devices is an attributable factor that may affect the oral cavity homeostasis. The aim of this study was to monitor the oral environmental changes caused by dental devices, as sports mouthguards with the aid of a chair-side test.

METHODS

Sixty children with sports-mouthguards were analyzed at baseline (T0), after 6 months of dental devices use (T1), after a year (T2) and after almost 6 months without using it (T3). At T0, a clinical monitoring was performed and the DMFT index was recorded. At each time of observation, the following parameters were recorded: FMPS, FMBS, unstimulated-flow rate, saliva consistency, resting pH, stimulated saliva, buffer capacity, the CFU/ml of Streptococcus mutans.

RESULTS

In 60 subjects, mean age 9.9 ± 1.2, mean value of DMFT 1.55 ± 1.29,dmf-t 3.43 ± 1.21, FMPS and FMBS values increased significantly at T2. The values of unstimulated flow rate vary significantly within the observation times. The pH value and the buffering capacity reduced significantly at T2. The tests for the detection of S. mutans were negative in all the subjects in several observation times. All patients regularly used fluoridated toothpaste and comply with normal standards of oral hygiene; but over time the patients lost their initial motivation.

CONCLUSIONS

Sport treatment with dental devices dues to changes in oral ecological factors: increases FMPS, FMBS and reduces the buffering capacity and the salivary pH. The use of removable devices increases the retentive plaque surfaces and inhibits the protective effect of saliva.The so-called "chair-side" tests were able to easily monitor patients and to determine the risk of oral disease during sport treatment.

Effect of fixed orthodontic appliances on salivary properties

BACKGROUND

So far, a few studies have tried to investigate the relationship between the placement of fixed orthodontic appliances and the change of nonmicrobial salivary properties, mostly with conflicting outcomes and short-term assessment (up to 6 months from bracket placement). The purpose of this study was to evaluate the salivary flow rate, pH and buffer capacity prior to the beginning of therapy and after 1 year from bracket placement using a simple and commercially available chairside saliva check kit.

METHODS

The study population consisted of 20 healthy patients (mean age, 16.5±4 years) scheduled for fixed orthodontic treatment. Salivary samples were taken just before bracket bonding (T0; baseline assessment) and after 1 year of treatment (T1; half-treatment assessment) using the GC Saliva-Check Kit (GC Corp., Leuven, Belgium).

RESULTS

No statistically significant difference was detected between T0 and T1 for the salivary parameters examined in the present study.

CONCLUSIONS

Under the conditions of this study, the placement of fixed orthodontic appliances did not change the salivary pH, buffer capacity and flow rate after 1 year of treatment if compared with the baseline assessment.