Survival of composite restorations after selective or total caries removal in primary teeth and predictors of failures: A 36-months randomized controlled trial

Comparing modified USPHS and FDI criteria for the assessment of glass ionomer restorations in primary molars utilising clinical and photographic evaluation

PURPOSE

To compare the applicability of modified US Public Health Service (USPHS) and FDI criteria for evaluating glass ionomer cement (GIC) restorations in primary posterior teeth through digital image analysis.

METHODS

This comparative analytic study was conducted at the Children's Dental Clinic RSKGM FKG UI, involving 40 GIC restorations on lower first primary molars in children aged 4-9 years. After cleaning, the restorations were assessed clinically using modified USPHS and FDI criteria before taking digital images, then the collected images were re-evaluated using both sets of criteria, and the clinical assessment results were compared to the digital image assessment results.

RESULTS

Statistical analysis revealed significant differences between the clinical evaluation of GIC restorations in primary teeth and their corresponding digital photographs when using the modified USPHS criteria, and although the use of FDI criteria yielded different results, these differences were not statistically significant.

CONCLUSION

The assessment of GIC restorations through digital images aligns more closely with clinical assessments using the FDI criteria compared to the modified USPHS criteria.

Enhancing adhesive-dentin interface stability of primary teeth: From ethanol wet-bonding to plant-derived polyphenol application

OBJECTIVES

To investigate whether the adhesive-dentin interface stability of primary teeth would be enhanced by epigallocatechin-3-gallate (EGCG) with ethanol wet-bonding.

METHODS

Non-caries primary molars were sliced to achieve a flat dentin surface and etched then randomly distributed into five groups in accordance with different treatments: group 1, no treatment; group 2, applying absolute ethanol wet-bonding for 60 s; groups 3-5, applying 0.1%, 0.5%, and 1% (w/v) EGCG-incorporating ethanol wet-bonding (0.1%, 0.5%, and 1% EGCG) for 60 s. Singlebond universal adhesive was then applied followed by resin composite construction. Microtensile bond strength, fracture mode, and nanoleakage at adhesive-dentin interface were evaluated after 24 h of water storage or 10,000 times of thermocycling. Zymography of hybrid layer, biofilm formation of Streptococcus mutans by CLSM, FESEM, and MTT test, and cytotoxicity by CCK-8 assay were respectively assessed.

RESULTS

Irrespective of thermocycling, the dentin bond strength was preserved with reduced nanoleakage in the 0.5% and 1% EGCG groups. Furthermore, the activity of endogenous proteases and the growth of Streptococcus mutans biofilm were inhibited after treatment with 0.5% and 1% EGCG/ethanol solutions (groups 4 and 5). CCK-8 results of the 0.1% and 0.5% EGCG groups showed acceptable biocompatibility.

CONCLUSIONS

Treatment by EGCG/ethanol solutions effectively enhanced the bond stability of primary teeth at the adhesive-dentin interface.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

Synergistic application of EGCG and ethanol wet-bonding suggesting a promising strategy to improve dentin bonding durability with bacterial biofilm inhibition, thus increasing resin-based restorations' service life in primary dentition.

Clinical effectiveness of restorative materials for the restoration of carious lesions in pulp treated primary teeth: a systematic review

Purpose

To systematically review the clinical performance of restorative materials after pulp therapy of carious primary teeth. It is part 2 of a systematic review on the clinical effectiveness of restorative materials for the management of carious primary teeth supporting the European Academy of Paediatric Dentistry (EAPD) guideline development.

Methods

Four electronic databases were systematically searched up to December 28th, 2020. Randomised controlled clinical trials (RCTs) on restorative materials for the restoration of carious primary teeth after pulp therapy were included. Failure rate, annual failure rate (AFR) and reasons for failure were recorded. Studies were sorted by restorative materials. The Cochrane Risk of bias tool for randomised trials (RoB 2.0) was used for quality assessment.

Results

After identification of 1685 articles and screening of 41 papers from EAPD review group 1, 5 RCTs were included. Restored primary molars with pulpotomy presented the following AFRs: composite resin (CR) 0%, preformed metal crowns (PMCs) 2.4–2.5%, resin-modified glass-ionomer cement combined with CR 3.8%, compomer 8.9%, and amalgam 14.3%. Maxillary primary incisors receiving pulpectomy exhibited AFRs of 0–2.3% for composite strip crowns (CSCs) depending on the post chosen. Reasons for failure were secondary caries, poor marginal adaptation, loss of retention and fracture of restoration. All studies were classified as high risk of bias. Meta-analyses were not feasible given the clinical/methodological heterogeneity amongst studies.

Conclusion

Considering any limitations of this review, CR and PMCs can be recommended for primary molars after pulpotomy, and CSCs for primary incisors receiving pulpectomy. However, a need for further well-designed RCTs was observed.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s40368-022-00744-4.

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.

Annual review of selected scientific literature: A report of the Committee on Scientific Investigation of the American Academy of Restorative Dentistry

The Scientific Investigation Committee of the American Academy of Restorative Dentistry offers this review of the 2020 professional literature in restorative dentistry to inform busy dentists regarding noteworthy scientific and clinical progress over the past year. Each member of the committee brings discipline-specific expertise to this work to cover this broad topic. Specific subject areas addressed include prosthodontics; periodontics, alveolar bone, and peri-implant tissues; implant dentistry; dental materials and therapeutics; occlusion and temporomandibular disorders (TMDs); sleep-related breathing disorders; oral medicine and oral and maxillofacial surgery; and dental caries and cariology. The authors focused their efforts on reporting information likely to influence day-to-day dental treatment decisions with a keen eye on future trends in the profession. With the tremendous volume of dentistry and related literature being published today, this review cannot possibly be comprehensive. The purpose is to update interested readers and provide important resource material for those interested in pursuing greater detail. It remains our intent to assist colleagues in navigating the extensive volume of important information being published annually. It is our hope that readers find this work useful in successfully managing the dental patients they encounter.

Interventions for treating cavitated or dentine carious lesions

BACKGROUND

Traditionally, cavitated carious lesions and those extending into dentine have been treated by 'complete' removal of carious tissue, i.e. non-selective removal and conventional restoration (CR). Alternative strategies for managing cavitated or dentine carious lesions remove less or none of the carious tissue and include selective carious tissue removal (or selective excavation (SE)), stepwise carious tissue removal (SW), sealing carious lesions using sealant materials, sealing using preformed metal crowns (Hall Technique, HT), and non-restorative cavity control (NRCC).

OBJECTIVES

To determine the comparative effectiveness of interventions (CR, SE, SW, sealing of carious lesions using sealant materials or preformed metal crowns (HT), or NRCC) to treat carious lesions conventionally considered to require restorations (cavitated or micro-cavitated lesions, or occlusal lesions that are clinically non-cavitated but clinically/radiographically extend into dentine) in primary or permanent teeth with vital (sensitive) pulps.

SEARCH METHODS

An information specialist searched four bibliographic databases to 21 July 2020 and used additional search methods to identify published, unpublished and ongoing studies.  SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised clinical trials comparing different levels of carious tissue removal, as listed above, against each other, placebo, or no treatment. Participants had permanent or primary teeth (or both), and vital pulps (i.e. no irreversible pulpitis/pulp necrosis), and carious lesions conventionally considered to need a restoration (i.e. cavitated lesions, or non- or micro-cavitated lesions radiographically extending into dentine). The primary outcome was failure, a composite measure of pulp exposure, endodontic therapy, tooth extraction, and restorative complications (including resealing of sealed lesions).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Pairs of review authors independently screened search results, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias in the studies and the overall certainty of the evidence using GRADE criteria. We measured treatment effects through analysing dichotomous outcomes (presence/absence of complications) and expressing them as odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). For failure in the subgroup of deep lesions, we used network meta-analysis to assess and rank the relative effectiveness of different interventions.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 27 studies with 3350 participants and 4195 teeth/lesions, which were conducted in 11 countries and published between 1977 and 2020. Twenty-four studies used a parallel-group design and three were split-mouth. Two studies included adults only, 20 included children/adolescents only and five included both. Ten studies evaluated permanent teeth, 16 evaluated primary teeth and one evaluated both. Three studies treated non-cavitated lesions; 12 treated cavitated, deep lesions, and 12 treated cavitated but not deep lesions or lesions of varying depth.  Seventeen studies compared conventional treatment (CR) with a less invasive treatment: SE (8), SW (4), two HT (2), sealing with sealant materials (4) and NRCC (1). Other comparisons were: SE versus HT (2); SE versus SW (4); SE versus sealing  with sealant materials (2); sealant materials versus no sealing (2).  Follow-up times varied from no follow-up (pulp exposure during treatment) to 120 months, the most common being 12 to 24 months. All studies were at overall high risk of bias. Effect of interventions Sealing using sealants versus other interventions for non-cavitated or cavitated but not deep lesions There was insufficient evidence of a difference between sealing with sealants and CR (OR 5.00, 95% CI 0.51 to 49.27; 1 study, 41 teeth, permanent teeth, cavitated), sealing versus SE (OR 3.11, 95% CI 0.11 to 85.52; 2 studies, 82 primary teeth, cavitated) or sealing versus no treatment (OR 0.05, 95% CI 0.00 to 2.71; 2 studies, 103 permanent teeth, non-cavitated), but we assessed all as very low-certainty evidence. HT, CR, SE, NRCC for cavitated, but not deep lesions in primary teeth The odds of failure may be higher for CR than HT (OR 8.35, 95% CI 3.73 to 18.68; 2 studies, 249 teeth; low-certainty evidence) and lower for HT than NRCC (OR 0.19, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.74; 1 study, 84 teeth, very low-certainty evidence). There was insufficient evidence of a difference between SE versus HT (OR 8.94, 95% CI 0.57 to 139.67; 2 studies, 586 teeth) or CR versus NRCC (OR 1.16, 95% CI 0.50 to 2.71; 1 study, 102 teeth), both very low-certainty evidence. CR, SE, SW for deep lesions The odds of failure were higher for CR than SW in permanent teeth (OR 2.06, 95% CI 1.34 to 3.17; 3 studies, 398 teeth; moderate-certainty evidence), but not primary teeth (OR 2.43, 95% CI 0.65 to 9.12; 1 study, 63 teeth; very low-certainty evidence). The odds of failure may be higher for CR than SE in permanent teeth (OR 11.32, 95% CI 1.97 to 65.02; 2 studies, 179 teeth) and primary teeth (OR 4.43, 95% CI 1.04 to 18.77; 4 studies, 265 teeth), both very low-certainty evidence. Notably, two studies compared CR versus SE in cavitated, but not deep lesions, with insufficient evidence of a difference in outcome (OR 0.62, 95% CI 0.21 to 1.88; 204 teeth; very low-certainty evidence). The odds of failure were higher for SW than SE in permanent teeth (OR 2.25, 95% CI 1.33 to 3.82; 3 studies, 371 teeth; moderate-certainty evidence), but not primary teeth (OR 2.05, 95% CI 0.49 to 8.62; 2 studies, 126 teeth; very low-certainty evidence). For deep lesions, a network meta-analysis showed the probability of failure to be greatest for CR compared with SE, SW and HT.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Compared with CR, there were lower numbers of failures with HT and SE in the primary dentition, and with SE and SW in the permanent dentition. Most studies showed high risk of bias and limited precision of estimates due to small sample size and typically limited numbers of failures, resulting in assessments of low or very low certainty of evidence for most comparisons.