Use of rubber dam versus cotton roll isolation on composite resin restorations' survival in primary molars: 2-year results from a non-inferiority clinical trial

Isabel C Olegário, Bruna L P Moro, Tamara K Tedesco, Raiza D Freitas, Ana Laura Pássaro, Jonathan Rafael Garbim, Rodolfo Oliveira, Fausto M Mendes, CARDEC 03 collaborative group, Daniela Prócida Raggio, Annelry Costa Serra, Antonio Carlos Lopes Silva, Carolina de Picoli Acosta, Caroline Mariano Laux, Cíntia Saori Saihara, Haline Cunha Medeiros Maia, Isabel Cristina Olegário, Isabella Ronqui de Almeida, Jhandira Daibelis Yampa Vargas, José Carlos P Imparato, Julia Gomes Freitas, Karina Haibara De Natal, Kim Rud Ekstrand, Laura Regina Antunes Pontes, Mariana Bifulco, Mariana Minatel Braga, Mariana Pinheiro Araújo, Mayume Amorim do Vale, Renata Marques Samuel, Rita Baronti, Simone Cesar, Tathiane Larissa Lenzi, Tatiane Fernandes Novaes, Thais Gimenez, Cacia Signori, Maximiliano Sérgio Cenci, Isabel C Olegário, Bruna L P Moro, Tamara K Tedesco, Raiza D Freitas, Ana Laura Pássaro, Jonathan Rafael Garbim, Rodolfo Oliveira, Fausto M Mendes, CARDEC 03 collaborative group, Daniela Prócida Raggio, Annelry Costa Serra, Antonio Carlos Lopes Silva, Carolina de Picoli Acosta, Caroline Mariano Laux, Cíntia Saori Saihara, Haline Cunha Medeiros Maia, Isabel Cristina Olegário, Isabella Ronqui de Almeida, Jhandira Daibelis Yampa Vargas, José Carlos P Imparato, Julia Gomes Freitas, Karina Haibara De Natal, Kim Rud Ekstrand, Laura Regina Antunes Pontes, Mariana Bifulco, Mariana Minatel Braga, Mariana Pinheiro Araújo, Mayume Amorim do Vale, Renata Marques Samuel, Rita Baronti, Simone Cesar, Tathiane Larissa Lenzi, Tatiane Fernandes Novaes, Thais Gimenez, Cacia Signori, Maximiliano Sérgio Cenci

Abstract

Background: This non-inferiority randomised clinical trial aimed to evaluate the survival of direct bulk fill composite resin restorations in primary molars using different methods of moisture control: rubber dam isolation (RDI-local anaesthesia and rubber dam) and cotton roll isolation (CRI-cotton roll and saliva ejector). Secondary outcomes included baseline and 2-year incremental cost, self-reported child's pain scores and patient behaviour during the restorative procedure.

Methods: A total of 174 molars (93 children) with dentine caries lesions were randomly allocated to study groups (RDI or CRI) and restored with bulk fill composite resin by trained operators. Two blinded examiners assessed the restorations for up to 24 months. Wong-baker faces and Frankl's behaviour rating scales were used for accessing the child's pain and behaviour, respectively. The primary outcome (restoration survival) was analysed using the two-sample non-inferiority test for survival data using Cox Regression (non-inferiority/alternative hypothesis HR > 0.85; CI = 90%). Bootstrap Linear regression was used for cost analysis and logistic regression for pain and behaviour analysis (α = 5%).

Results: After 2-years, 157 restorations were evaluated (drop-out = 9.7%). The survival rate was RDI = 60.4% and CRI = 54.3%. The non-inferiority hypothesis was accepted by the Cox Regression analysis (HR = 1.33; 90% CI 0.88-1.99; p = 0.036). RDI was 53% more expensive when compared to the CRI group. No differences were found between the groups regarding pain (p = 0.073) and behaviour (p = 0.788).

Conclusion: Cotton roll isolation proved to be non-inferior when compared to rubber dam for composite restorations longevity in primary molars. Furthermore, the latest presented the disadvantage of higher cost and longer procedure time. Clinical Significance The moisture control method does not influence the longevity of composite restorations in primary molars. Cotton roll isolation proved to be non-inferior to rubber dam isolation and is a viable option for restoring primary molars. Clinical trial registration registered NCT03733522 on 07/11/2018. The present trial was nested within another clinical trial, the CARies DEtection in Children (CARDEC-03-NCT03520309).

Keywords: Children; Composite resin; Non-inferiority; Primary teeth; Randomised clinical trial; Rubber dam.

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

© 2022. The Author(s).

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
CONSORT Flow Diagram
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Kaplan–Meier Survival analysis between groups (log rank = 0.245)
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
Possible results of a non-inferiority clinical trial considering a non-inferiority limit of 15% between groups using survival results as primary outcome (HR = 0.85)
Fig. 4
Fig. 4
Distribution between mean professional and material baseline cost between study groups in US$
Fig. 5
Fig. 5
Cost-effectiveness of using CRI versus RDI considering costs (US$) and effectiveness (survival in months)
Fig. 6
Fig. 6
Distribution between pain reported by the child after treatment between groups
Fig. 7
Fig. 7
Distribution between child behaviour (Frankl's behaviour rating scale—FBRS) reported by the operator after treatment between groups

References

    1. Opdam NJ, van de Sande FH, Bronkhorst E, et al. longevity of posterior composite restorations: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Dent Res. 2014;93(10):943–949. doi: 10.1177/0022034514544217.
    1. Ástvaldsdóttir Á, Dagerhamn J, van Dijken JW, et al. Longevity of posterior resin composite restorations in adults—a systematic review. J Dent. 2015;43(8):934–954. doi: 10.1016/j.jdent.2015.05.001.
    1. Worthington HV, Khangura S, Seal K, et al. Direct composite resin fillings versus amalgam fillings for permanent posterior teeth. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2021;8(8):CD005620. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD005620.pub3.
    1. Santos AP, Moreira IK, Scarpelli AC, Pordeus IA, Paiva SM, Martins CC. Survival of adhesive restorations for primary molars: a systematic review and metaanalysis of clinical trials. Pediatr Dent. 2016;38(5):370–378.
    1. Chisini LA, Collares K, Cademartori MG, et al. Restorations in primary teeth: a systematic review on survival and reasons for failures. Int J Paediatr Dent. 2018;28(2):123–139. doi: 10.1111/ipd.12346.
    1. Koppolu M, Gogala D, Mathew VB, Thangala V, Deepthi M, Sasidhar N. Effect of saliva and blood contamination on the bond strength of self-etching adhesive system—an in vitro study. J Conserv Dent. 2012;15(3):270–273. doi: 10.4103/0972-0707.97956.
    1. Aboushelib MN. Clinical performance of self-etching adhesives with saliva contamination. J Adhes Dent. 2011;13(5):489–493. doi: 10.3290/j.jad.a19648.
    1. Chang SW, Cho BH, Lim RY, et al. Effects of blood contamination on microtensile bond strength to dentin of three self-etch adhesives. Oper Dent. 2010;35(3):330–336. doi: 10.2341/09-244-L.
    1. Cajazeira MR, De Sabóia TM, Maia LC. Influence of the operatory field isolation technique on tooth-colored direct dental restorations. Am J Dent. 2014;27(3):155–159.
    1. Strassler HE. Isolation of the field more important than ever, MSDA J. (1996);39:119–21. (accessed February 27th, 2018).
    1. Kemoli AM, van Amerongen WE, Opinya GN. Short communication: Influence of different isolation methods on the survival of proximal ART restorations in primary molars after two years. Eur Arch Paediatr Dent. 2010;11(3):136–139. doi: 10.1007/BF03262729.
    1. Ozer L, Ozalp N, Okte Z, Oztas D. Effects of saliva contamination on shear bond strength of compomer to dentin in primary teeth. Am J Dent. 2006;19(1):28–30.
    1. Fritz UB, Finger WJ, Stean H. Salivary contamination during bonding procedures with a one-bottle adhesive system. Quintessence Int. 1998;29(9):567–572.
    1. Lenzi TL, Pires CW, Soares FZM, Raggio DP, Ardenghi TM, de Oliveira RR. Performance of universal adhesive in primary molars after selective removal of carious tissue: an 18-month randomised clinical trial. Pediatr Dent. 2017;39(5):371–376.
    1. Oter B, Deniz K, Cehreli SB. Preliminary data on clinical performance of bulk-fill restorations in primary molars. Niger J Clin Pract. 2018;21(11):1484–1491. doi: 10.4103/njcp.njcp_151_18.
    1. Akman H, Tosun G. Clinical evaluation of bulk-fill resins and glass ionomer restorative materials: A 1-year follow-up randomised clinical trial in children. Niger J Clin Pract. 2020;23(4):489–497. doi: 10.4103/njcp.njcp_519_19.
    1. Mala S, Lynch CD, Burke FM, Dummer PM. Attitudes of final year dental students to the use of rubber dam. Int Endod J. 2009;42(7):632–638. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2591.2009.01569.x.
    1. Lynch CD, McConnell RJ. Attitudes and use of rubber dam by Irish general dental practitioners. Int Endod J. 2007;40(6):427–432. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2591.2007.01212.x.
    1. Daudt E, Lopes GC, Vieira LC. Does operatory field isolation influence the performance of direct adhesive restorations? J Adhes Dent. 2013;15(1):27–32. doi: 10.3290/j.jad.a28194.
    1. Franzon R, Opdam NJ, Guimarães LF, et al. Randomised controlled clinical trial of the 24-months survival of composite resin restorations after one-step incomplete and complete excavation on primary teeth. J Dent. 2015;43(10):1235–1241. doi: 10.1016/j.jdent.2015.07.011.
    1. Wong DL, Baker CM. Pain in children: comparison of assessment scales., Pediatr. Nurs. 14 (1988) 9–17. (accessed June 27th, 2017).
    1. Frankl S, Shiere F, Fogels H. Should the parent remain with the child in the dental operatory? J Dent Child. 1962;29:150–163.
    1. OECD, Eurostat-OECD Methodological Manual on Purchasing Power Parities (2012 Edition), OECD Publishing, 2012. 10.1787/9789264189232-en
    1. Roeleveld AC, van Amerongen WE, Mandari GJ. Influence of residual caries and cervical gaps on the survival rate of Class II glass ionomer restorations. Eur Arch Paediatr Dent. 2006;7(2):85–91. doi: 10.1007/BF03320820.
    1. Miao C, Yang X, Wong MC, Zou J, Zhou X, Li C, Wang Y. Rubber dam isolation for restorative treatment in dental patients. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2021;5(5):CD009858. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD009858.pub3.
    1. Tedesco TK, Gimenez T, Floriano I, et al. Scientific evidence for the management of dentin caries lesions in pediatric dentistry: a systematic review and network meta-analysis. PLoS ONE. 2018;13(11):e0206296. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0206296.
    1. Rogers HJ, Freitas RD, Beeson MJ, Vernazza CR. Economic evaluations in paediatric dentistry clinical trials. Int J Paediatr Dent. 2020;31(Suppl 1):56–65. doi: 10.1111/ipd.12772.
    1. Calvert M, Kyte D, Mercieca-Bebber R, et al. Guidelines for inclusion of patient-reported outcomes in clinical trial protocols: the SPIRIT-PRO extension. JAMA. 2018;319(5):483–494. doi: 10.1001/jama.2017.21903.
    1. AAPD, Guideline on behavior guidance for the pediatric dental patient. Pediatr Dent. 2013;30:125–33. (accessed November 23rd, 2018).
    1. Birnie KA, Hundert AS, Lalloo C, Nguyen C, Stinson JN. Recommendations for selection of self-report pain intensity measures in children and adolescents: a systematic review and quality assessment of measurement properties. Pain. 2019;160(1):5–18. doi: 10.1097/j.pain.0000000000001377.

Source: PubMed

Patrocinadores e Colaboradores

Condições médicas

Intervenções de drogas

3
Se inscrever