Effect of Refurbishing Amalgam and Resin Composite Restorations After 12 Years: Controlled Clinical Trial

Influence of Cavity Lining on the 3-Year Clinical Outcome of Posterior Composite Restorations: A Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial

The purpose of this randomized, split-mouth-designed controlled and single-blinded clinical study was to evaluate the 3-year clinical performance of Class I and Class II resin composite restorations placed with or without cavity lining with a flowable composite. Fifty patients with treatment needs in two premolars or molars were included. One of the teeth was restored using the nanohybrid composite (Grandio®SO, control group), in the test group a high viscosity flowable composite was additionally applied as a first layer. In both groups, the same self-etch adhesive system was applied. Clinical evaluation after 3 years was carried out using the modified USPHS/Ryge criteria. At the 3-year follow-up the recall rate was 92%. Four restorations failed in the test group (8.7%), three due to the loss of vitality and one after fracture. The control group exhibited a cumulative success rate of 100%, while the test group achieved a success rate of 91.3%. This led to significant differences in the annual failure rate (AFR) between the two groups, with rates of 0% and 2.9% (p < 0.05; Mann-Whitney U-test). After 3 years the cumulative survival rate including all restorations was 95.7%. Statistical analysis revealed significant differences for the parameters: tooth vitality, marginal discoloration, success rate, and AFR. The other parameters exhibited no significant differences. Consequently, the nanohybrid composite demonstrated excellent performance over a 3-year period, whereas the utilization of a flowable composite for the cavity lining did not appear to exert a beneficial influence on clinical outcomes.

Compliance of randomized controlled trials in posterior restorations with the CONSORT statement: a systematic review of methodology

OBJECTIVES

This study aims to investigate the compliance of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in posterior restorations with the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials Statement (CONSORT) statement and to analyze the risk of bias (RoB) of these studies.

METHODS

A systematic search was performed in PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, LILACS/BBO, and Cochrane Library. Only RCTs published in peer-reviewed journals were included. The compliance with the CONSORT was evaluated in a 0-2 scale where 0 = no description, 1 = poor description and 2 = adequate description. Descriptive analyses of the CONSORT mean score by journal, country, and RoB were performed. The RoB in RCTs was evaluated by using the Cochrane Collaboration's tool version 1.0.

RESULTS

A total of 15,476 studies were identified after duplicates removal. O only 202 meet the eligibility criteria, among which 31 were follow-up studies. Concerning the overall RoB, only 29 out of 171 were classified as low risk of bias. The overall mean CONSORT score was 19 ± 5.4 points, which means compliance of approximately 59%. Significant differences among countries, publication period, and RoB were observed (p < 0.001). The journal's impact factor was not correlated with the overall CONSORT score (p = 0.36).

CONCLUSIONS

The adherence of RCTs conducted in posterior restorations to the CONSORT Statement is still low. In addition, most studies were classified as at unclear risk of bias. These results call up an urgent need for improvement.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Most RCTs conducted in posterior teeth have poor reporting and are mainly classified as having an unclear risk of bias.

Longevity of Crown Margin Repairs Using Glass Ionomer Cement: A Retrospective Study

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to determine the survival time of crown margin repairs (CMRs) with glass ionomer and resin-modified glass ionomer cements on permanent teeth using electronic dental record (EDR) data.

METHODS

We queried a database of EDR (axiUm; Exan Group, Coquitlam, BC, Canada) in the Indiana University School of Dentistry (IUSD), Indianapolis, IN, USA, for records of patients who underwent CMRs of permanent teeth at the Graduate Operative Dentistry Clinic. Two examiners developed guidelines for reviewing the records and manually reviewed the clinical notes of patient records to confirm for CMRs. Only records that were confirmed with the presence of CMRs were retained in the final dataset for survival analysis. Survival time was calculated by Kaplan-Meier statistics, and a Cox proportional hazards model was performed to assess the influence of age, gender, and tooth type on survival time (a<0.05).

RESULTS

A total of 214 teeth (115 patients) with CMR were evaluated. Patient average age was 69.4 ± 11.7 years old. Posterior teeth accounted for 78.5% (n=168) of teeth treated. CMRs using glass ionomer cements had a 5-year survival rate of 62.9% and an annual failure rate (AFR) of 8.9%. Cox proportional-hazards model revealed that none of the factors examined (age, gender, tooth type) affected time to failure.

CONCLUSION

The results indicate the potential of CMRs for extending the functional life of crowns with defective margins, thus reducing provider and patient burden of replacing an indirect restoration. We recommend future studies with a larger population who received CMR to extend the generalizability of our findings and to determine the influence of factors such as caries risk and severity of defects on survival time.

Longevity of defective direct restorations treated by minimally invasive techniques or complete replacement in permanent teeth: A systematic review

OBJECTIVES

This systematic review aimed to verify if there is difference in the longevity of minimally invasive techniques compared to the complete replacement for the treatment of defective direct restorations in permanent teeth.

DATA

The data included randomized controlled clinical trials comparing the clinical performance of defective dental restorations treated by a complete replacement technique or minimally invasive techniques on permanent teeth. Evaluation of the risk of bias was performed using the Cochrane Collaboration common scheme for bias and the evidence was qualified using the GRADE tool.

SOURCE

A comprehensive search was performed in the electronic databases: PubMed, Scopus, ISI Web of Science, The Cochrane Library, LILACS, BBO, SIGLE, followed by manual search in the reference lists of the included studies, without any restrictions.

STUDY SELECTION

From 5554 retrieved studies, 10 met the eligibility criteria and were submitted to data extraction and quality assessment. The repair technique presented similar results to replacement and superior results when compared to sealing. In addition, refurbishment demonstrated to be a useful treatment for localized anatomical form defects. All the studies presented low risk of bias and high quality evidence for repair and refurbishment and moderate for the sealing technique.

CONCLUSIONS

The direct restorations treated by the repair, seal and refurbishment techniques did not present a significant difference in clinical longevity in comparison to the replacement technique in permanent teeth with overall moderate quality of evidence.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

The present findings demonstrated that the best treatment for defective restorations is conservative management. The evidence demonstrated here helps and encourages clinicians during the decision-making process. Moreover, it suggests not replacing imperfect restorations, but to managing them in a minimally invasive way, allowing the structure to be preserved.