Survival rate of primary molar restorations is not influenced by hand mixed or encapsulated GIC: 24 months RCT

Rodolfo de Carvalho Oliveira, Lucila Basto Camargo, Tatiane Fernandes Novaes, Laura Regina Antunes Pontes, Isabel Cristina Olegário, Thais Gimenez, Ana Laura Pássaro, Tamara Kerber Tedesco, Mariana Minatel Braga, Fausto Medeiros Mendes, Daniela Prócida Raggio, Rodolfo de Carvalho Oliveira, Lucila Basto Camargo, Tatiane Fernandes Novaes, Laura Regina Antunes Pontes, Isabel Cristina Olegário, Thais Gimenez, Ana Laura Pássaro, Tamara Kerber Tedesco, Mariana Minatel Braga, Fausto Medeiros Mendes, Daniela Prócida Raggio

Abstract

Background: Glass ionomer cements (GIC) have been considered the top option to restore primary teeth by dentists. The most common supply forms are hand mixed and encapsulated GIC. There is a lack of information about the impact of different GIC supply forms on restoration survival.

Methods: This randomized clinical trial compared the survival rate of occlusal and occlusoproximal restorations in primary molars using two glass ionomer cements versions: hand-mixed (H/M) and encapsulated (ENC) after 24 months. Children aged 3-10 years who presented dentin caries lesions in primary molars were selected at School of Dentistry, University of São Paulo, Brazil. They were randomly assigned to groups: H /M (Fuji IX®, GC Europe) or ENC (Equia Fill®, GC Europe). The occurrence of restoration failure was evaluated by two blinded and calibrated examiners. The analyses were performed in Stata 13 (StataCorp, USA). To evaluate the primary outcome (restoration survival), we performed a survival analysis. Additionally an intention to treat (ITT) analysis were done at 24 months of follow-up. Cox Regression with shared frailty was performed to assess association between restoration failure and independent variables (α = 5%).

Results: A total of 324 restorations were performed in 145 children. The survival for H/M group was 58.2% and 60.1% for ENC, with no difference (p = 0.738). Occlusoproximal restorations had lower survival rate when compared to occlusal ones (HR = 3.83; p < 0.001).

Conclusions: The survival rate in primary molars is not influenced by the different supply forms of GIC. Also, occlusoproximal restorations present reduced performances when compared to occlusal cavities.

Trial registration: This randomized clinical trial was registered on ClinicalTrials.Gov on 10/15/2014 under protocol (NCT02274142).

Keywords: Dental restoration; Glass ionomer cement; Randomized Clinical Trials.

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that they do not have competing interests.

© 2021. The Author(s).

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
CONSORT flowchart of the participants’ progress through the trial phases
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Kaplan–Meier survival estimates after 24 months follow-up

References

    1. Buerkle V, Kuehnisch J, Guelmann M, Hickel R. Restoration materials for primary molars—results from a European survey. J Dent. 2005;33(4):275–281. doi: 10.1016/j.jdent.2004.08.009.
    1. Šalinović I, Stunja M, Schauperl Z, Verzak Ž, Malčić AI, Rajić VB. Mechanical properties of high viscosity glass ionomer and glass hybrid restorative materials. Acta Stomatol Croat. 2019;53(2):125–131. doi: 10.15644/asc53/2/4.
    1. Dhar V, Hsu KL, Coll JA, et al. Evidence-based update of pediatric dental restorative procedures: dental materials. J Clin Pediatr Dent. 2015;39(4):303–310. doi: 10.17796/1053-4628-39.4.303.
    1. Pinto-Sinai G, Brewster J, Roberts H. Linear coefficient of thermal expansion evaluation of glass ionomer and resin-modified glass ionomer restorative materials. Oper Dent. 2018;43(5):266–272. doi: 10.2341/17-381-L.
    1. Ladewig NM, Sahiara CS, Yoshioka L, et al. Efficacy of conventional treatment with composite resin and atraumatic restorative treatment in posterior primary teeth: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial. BMJ Open. 2017;7(7):1–6. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2016-015542.
    1. de Amorim RG, Frencken JE, Raggio DP, Chen X, Hu X, Leal SC. Survival percentages of atraumatic restorative treatment (ART) restorations and sealants in posterior teeth: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Oral Investig. 2018;22(8):2703–2725. doi: 10.1007/s00784-018-2625-5.
    1. da Mata C, McKenna G, Anweigi L, et al. An RCT of atraumatic restorative treatment for older adults: 5 year results. J Dent. 2018;2019(83):95–99. doi: 10.1016/j.jdent.2019.03.003.
    1. Ersin NK, Candan U, Aykut A, Önçaǧ Ö, Eronat C, Kose T. A clinical evaluation of resin-based composite and glass ionomer cement restorations placed in primary teeth using the ART approach: results at 24 months. J Am Dent Assoc. 2006;137(11):1529–1536. doi: 10.14219/jada.archive.2006.0087.
    1. Carvalho TS, Correia FS, Diniz A, Bönecker M, Van Amerongen WE. Two years survival rate of Class II ART restorations in primary molars using two ways to avoid saliva contamination. Int J Paediatr Dent. 2010;20(6):419–425. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-263x.2010.01060.x.
    1. Olegário IC, de Brito Pacheco AL, de Araújo MP, et al. Low-cost GICs reduce survival rate in occlusal ART restorations in primary molars after one year: a RCT. J Dent. 2017;57:45–50. doi: 10.1016/j.jdent.2016.12.006.
    1. Billington RW, Williams JA, Pearson GJ. Variation in powder/liquid ratio of a restorative glass-ionomer cement used in dental practice. Br Dent J. 1990;169(6):164–167. doi: 10.1038/sj.bdj.4807311.
    1. Mulder R. Variation in the dispersions of powder liquid ratios in hand-mix glass ionomers. Open Dent J. 2018;12(1):647–654. doi: 10.2174/1745017901814010647.
    1. Behr M, Rosentritt M, Loher H, et al. Changes of cement properties caused by mixing errors: the therapeutic range of different cement types. Dent Mater. 2008;24(9):1187–1193. doi: 10.1016/j.dental.2008.01.013.
    1. Nomoto R, Komoriyama M, Mccabe JF, Hirano S. Effect of mixing method on the porosity of encapsulated glass ionomer cement. Dent Mater. 2004;20(10):972–978. doi: 10.1016/j.dental.2004.03.001.
    1. Nomoto R, McCabe JF. Effect of mixing methods on the compressive strength of glass ionomer cements. J Dent. 2001;29(3):205–210. doi: 10.1016/S0300-5712(01)00010-0.
    1. Freitas MC, Fagundes TC, Modena KC, Cardia GS, Navarro MF. Randomized clinical trial of encapsulated and hand-mixed glassionomer ART restorations: one-year follow-up. J Appl Oral Sci. 2018;26:e20170129. doi: 10.1590/1678-7757-2017-0129.
    1. Janett F, Lanker U, Jörg H, Hässig M, Thun R. Die Kastration männlicher Lämmer mittels Immunisierung gegen GnRH. Schweiz Arch Tierheilkd. 2003;145(6):291–299. doi: 10.1024/0036-7281.145.6.291.
    1. Mendes FM, Pontes LRA, Gimenez T, et al. Impact of the radiographic examination on diagnosis and treatment decision of caries lesions in primary teeth—the Caries Detection in Children (CARDEC-01) trial: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial. Trials. 2016;17(1):69. doi: 10.1186/s13063-016-1196-5.
    1. de Amorim RG, Leal SC, Frencken JE. Survival of atraumatic restorative treatment (ART) sealants and restorations: a meta-analysis. Clin Oral Investig. 2012;16(2):429–441. doi: 10.1007/s00784-011-0513-3.
    1. Pontes LRA, Novaes TF, Lara JS, et al. Impact of visual inspection and radiographs for caries detection in children through a 2-year randomized clinical trial: the Caries Detection in Children-1 study. J Am Dent Assoc. 2020;151(6):407–415.e1. doi: 10.1016/j.adaj.2020.02.008.
    1. Saghaei M. Random allocation software for parallel group randomized trials. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2004;4(1):26. doi: 10.1186/1471-2288-4-26.
    1. Frencken JE, Holmgren CJ. How effective is ART in the management of dental caries? Community Dent Oral Epidemiol. 1999;27(6):423–430. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0528.1999.tb02043.x.
    1. Roeleveld AC, van Amerongen WE, Mandari G. Influence of residual caries and cervical gaps on the survival rate of class II glass ionomer restorations. Eur Arch Paediatr Dent. 2006;1(2):85–90. doi: 10.1007/BF03320820.
    1. Tedesco TK, Calvo AFB, Lenzi TL, et al. ART is an alternative for restoring occlusoproximal cavities in primary teeth - evidence from an updated systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Paediatr Dent. 2017;27(3):201–209. doi: 10.1111/ipd.12252.
    1. Tyas MJ. Clinical evaluation of glass-ionomer cement restorations. J Appl Oral Sci. 2006;14(spe):10–13. doi: 10.1590/S1678-77572006000700003.
    1. Demarco FF, Corrêa MB, Cenci MS, Moraes RR, Opdam NJM. Longevity of posterior composite restorations: not only a matter of materials. Dent Mater. 2012;28(1):87–101. doi: 10.1016/j.dental.2011.09.003.
    1. Demarco FF, Collares K, Correa MB, Cenci MS, de Moraes RR, Opdam NJ. Should my composite restorations last forever? Why are they failing? Braz Oral Res. 2017;31(suppl 1):92–99. doi: 10.1590/1807-3107bor-2017.vol31.0056.
    1. De Amorim RG, Frencken JE, Raggio DP, Chen X, Hu X, Leal SC. Survival percentages of atraumatic restorative treatment (ART) restorations and sealants in posterior teeth: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Oral Investig. 2018;22(2703):2703–2725. doi: 10.1007/s00784-018-2625-5.

Source: PubMed

Sponsorer og samarbejdspartnere

Medicinske tilstande

Narkotikainterventioner

3
Abonner