Evaluation of the dental structure loss produced during maintenance and replacement of occlusal amalgam restorations

The aim of this in vitro study was to evaluate four different approaches to the decision of changing or not defective amalgam restorations in first primary molar teeth concerning the loss of dental structure. Ditched amalgam restorations (n = 11) were submitted to four different treatments, as follows: Control group - polishing and finishing of the restorations were carried out; Amalgam group - the ditched amalgam restorations were replaced by new amalgam restorations; Composite resin group - the initial amalgam restorations were replaced by composite resin restorations; Flowable resin group - the ditching around the amalgam restorations was filled with flowable resin. Images of the sectioned teeth were made and the area of the cavities before and after the procedures was determined by image analysis software to assess structural loss. The data were submitted to ANOVA complemented by the Student Newman Keuls test (p < 0.05). The cavities in all the groups presented significantly greater areas after the procedures. However, the amalgam group showed more substantial dental loss. The other three groups presented no statistically significant difference in dental structure loss after the re-treatments. Thus, replacing ditched amalgam restorations by other similar restorations resulted in a significant dental structure loss while maintaining them or replacing them by resin restorations did not result in significant loss

Effect of Pulp Protection Technique on the Clinical Performance of Amalgam Restorations: Three-Year Results

This study evaluated the influence of the pulp protection technique on clinical performance of amalgam restorations after three years, with particular reference to post-operative sensitivity and secondary caries. One hundred and twenty (120) Class II amalgam restorations (68 premolars, 52 molars; 78 MOD, 42 OD/MO) were placed in 30 participants (four restorations per participant).The restorations were divided into four groups according to the pulp protection technique used: copal varnish; 2% neutral sodium fluoride; adhesive resin and no pulp protection. The parameters evaluated were post-operative sensitivity, staining of the dental structure, tooth vitality, partial or total loss of the restoration and secondary caries. One hundred and eight (108)restorations were available for evaluation after three years. No partial or total loss of restorations had occurred; all teeth were vital, no tooth structure staining or secondary caries was detected in any of the restored teeth. Post-operative sensitivity was observed only in two restorations at baseline and at seven-days. The three year clinical performance of teeth restored with a high copper dispersed phase amalgam was not affected by the choice of pulp protection technique

Dental amalgam fillings: An under-investigated source of mercury exposure

Dental amalgam fillings, which contain about 50% mercury, have been used since the early 19th century. However, their use has been controversial, particularly because they continually release small amounts of mercury. Inorganic mercury is known to be highly toxic, particularly to the nervous system and kidneys, but exposures from amalgam fillings are generally well below those established as toxic. However, uncertainties about threshold concentrations of effect and the nature of any long-term exposure effects remain. Considering the long-standing and widespread use of these fillings, there has been remarkably little investigation of their safety and most epidemiologic studies have been relatively recent. In general, investigations to date have shown little evidence of effects on general chronic disease incidence or mortality. There have been few studies so far of neurodegenerative diseases and results have been equivocal. Assessments of the safety of dental amalgam have mainly been based on studies of occupationally exposed populations. However, the amalgam-exposed population contains a broader, potentially more susceptible, spectrum of people. In that regard, a number of studies of children that have found no evidence of health effects have provided some reassurance

The effectiveness of Atraumatic Restorative Treatment versus conventional restorative treatment for permanent molars and premolars A critical assessment of existing systematic reviews and report of a new systematic review

Available for download at: http://mahara.qmul.ac.uk/view/view.php?id=16447Available for download at: http://mahara.qmul.ac.uk/view/view.php?id=16447Available for download at: http://mahara.qmul.ac.uk/view/view.php?id=16447Available for download at: http://mahara.qmul.ac.uk/view/view.php?id=16447Available for download at: http://mahara.qmul.ac.uk/view/view.php?id=16447Available for download at: http://mahara.qmul.ac.uk/view/view.php?id=16447Available for download at: http://mahara.qmul.ac.uk/view/view.php?id=16447Background: Atraumatic Restorative Treatment (ART) is the removal of caries using hand instruments and restoration of the resulting cavity using an adhesive restorative material. It was designed to restore teeth in communities without access to conventional dental clinics in poorer countries but has come to be used by dentists in the developed world too, as an alternative to conventional restorative treatment. Objectives: 1) to assess the scope and the methodological and reporting quality of existing systematic reviews of the effectiveness of ART compared to conventional restorative treatment; 2) to evaluate the effectiveness of ART compared to conventional treatment in permanent teeth with class I and II cavities. Methods: Searches: 1) for the assessment of existing systematic reviews: Electronic searches were conducted of OVID Medline, OVID Embase, The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR), the Centre for Reviews and Dissemination (CRD) databases (DARE, NHSEED and HTA), Google Scholar, and the CNKI and CAOD Chinese databases; 2) for the systematic reviews of ART in permanent teeth: the above searches were supplemented by searches of the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), LILAC, BBO, IMEAR (WHO Index Medicus for South East Region), WPRIM (WHO Western Pacific Region Index Medicus) and IndMed, Current Controlled Trials, Clinical Trials, OpenSIGLE, IADR conference abstracts and NLM Gateway. Hand searches were conducted of six dental journals known to have reported ART studies. References from retrieved systematic reviews, trials and other related papers were searched for additional reports. Authors were contacted. There were no language restrictions. Selection criteria: 1) for the assessment of existing systematic reviews: systematic reviews that compared ART to conventional treatment for the restoration of dental cavities; 2) for the systematic reviews of ART in permanent teeth: randomised controlled trials that compared ART using any adhesive material to conventional treatment using amalgam or any adhesive material Data collection: 1) for the assessment of existing systematic reviews: Reviews were selected and data was extracted by a single reviewer using a custom made data extraction sheet. Scope was assessed in terms of materials used, teeth and cavity type. Methodological quality was assessed using AMSTAR. Reporting quality was assessed using the PRISMA guidelines; 2) for the systematic reviews of ART in permanent teeth: reports of trials were screened and selected independently by two reviewers and data would have been extracted on a custom made data extraction sheet had there been eligible trials. Results: 1) for the assessment of existing systematic reviews: three systematic reviews were identified. Two of these were restricted to comparing ART with glass-ionomer to conventional treatment with amalgam; two allowed for inclusion of all cavity types in both deciduous and permanent teeth. None was of high methodological quality and reporting quality was good in one of the reviews only; 2) for the systematic reviews of ART in permanent teeth: no eligible trials were identified. Author’s conclusions: 1) existing systematic reviews do not have sufficient scope to allow for the inclusion of potentially eligible trials that would assess ARTs effectiveness and they have been of high to medium risk of bias; 2) it is disappointing that there are no properly conducted randomised controlled trials comparing ART to conventional treatment in class I and II cavities in the permanent dentition

Dental Dam Utilization by Dentists in an Intramural Faculty Practice

Objectives: From casual observation of our colleagues, only a few individuals use the dental dam for operative procedures in their faculty practice. The purpose of this study was to obtain faculty perceptions of the dental dam, quantify its utilization in their intramural faculty practice, and determine the factors that influence dental dam usage.Materials and Methods: A survey containing 11 questions was sent to 19 faculty members who teach full time and maintain an intramural dental practice involving operative dentistry. Thirty electronic dental health records of the 19 providers were reviewed to gather the following information from restorative procedures they completed: isolation methods, tooth location and involved surfaces, and dental restorative material.Results: Overall, dental dam was utilized for 30% of all restorative procedures and was used less than 20% of the time for placement of class II and class III composite resins. Dental dam utilization rate by general dentists was 37% and 17.6% for prosthodontists. Those general dentists with prior history of military dental practice had a utilization rate of 78.6% and nonmilitary dentists only 7.6%. Eight faculty members responded to the questionnaire for a 42% return rate. Those who practiced dentistry in the military strongly agreed that the dental dam is the standard of care, improves their quality of restorative work, and should be documented in the dental record.Conclusions: There were significantly different dental dam utilization rates between general dentists and prosthodontists and between dentists with prior military experience and those without

Diagnostic accuracy of cone-beam computed tomography in detecting secondary caries under composite fillings: An in vitro study

Purpose: The aim of this in vitro study was to assess the diagnostic performance of cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) in the detection of secondary carious lesions under composite resin fillings applied to different types of cavities. Materials and Methods: Occlusal cavities (O) (n=18), occlusal cavities with mesial or distal component (MO/DO) (n=30), and mesial–occlusal–distal cavities (MOD) (n=30) were prepared in seventy eight extracted human posterior teeth. In half of the cavities in each group, artificial secondary caries lesions were simulated. All cavities were restored by using composite resin. All specimens were embedded in silicone and they were positioned to have approximal contacts. CBCT imaging was done and data were evaluated two times with two week interval by two observers, using a five-point confidence scale. Intra- and inter-observer agreements were calculated with Kappa statistics (κ). The area under (Az) the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve was used to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy. Results: Intra- (κ =0.89) and inter-observer (κ = 0.79) agreements were found to be excellent. Az values were highest for the O restorations which is followed by the MOD and DO/MO restorations. Az values for MOD and DO/MO restorations were very low and no statistically significant difference was found. Sensitivity for DO/MO restorations and specificity for MOD restorations were found to be the lowest values. Conclusion: Diagnostic performance of CBCT was higher in O composite restorations than MOD and DO/MO restorations for secondary caries detection. The use of alternative imaging methods rather than CBCT may be useful for evaluating secondary caries under composite MOD and DO/MO restorations

Preformed metal crowns for decayed primary molar teeth

BackgroundPreformed metal crowns (PMCs) are recommended by the British Society of Paediatric Dentistry (BSPD) for restoring badly broken down primary molar teeth. However, few dental practitioners adopt this technique in clinical practice, citing cost and clinical difficulty as reasons for this. Whilst there is a subjective impression by clinical academics that PMCs provide a more durable restoration than filling materials, there appears to be little evidence within the literature to support this.ObjectivesThe primary aim of this systematic review was to compare clinical outcomes for primary molar teeth restored using PMCs compared to those restored with filling materials.Search methodsThe literature was searched using: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2005, Issue 3); MEDLINE (1966 to August 2005); EMBASE (1980 to August 2005); System for Information on Grey Literature in Europe (SIGLE) (1976 to August 2005). Relevant publications' reference lists were reviewed for relevant articles. The most recent search was carried out on 24 August 2005.Selection criteriaRandomised controlled trials (RCTs) that assessed the effectiveness of PMCs compared with filling materials or where there had been no treatment in children with untreated tooth decay in one or more primary molar teeth.Data collection and analysisTwo review authors independently assessed the title and abstracts for each article from the search results to decide whether it was likely to be relevant. Full papers were obtained for relevant articles and all three review authors studied these.Main resultsForty‐seven records were retrieved by the search strategies of which some were duplicates. Of these, 14 studies were scrutinised. No studies met the inclusion criteria and six studies were excluded from the review as they were either retrospective in design or reported as prospective outcomes but not randomised. No data were available for extraction and analysis and therefore, no conclusion could be made as to whether PMCs were more successful than filling materials for restoring primary molar teeth.Authors' conclusionsNo RCTs were available for appraisal. Whilst this technique is recommended by the BSPD for use in clinical practice, the evidence to support this is not strong, consisting mainly of case reports and uncontrolled studies. It is important that the absence of evidence for PMCs is not misinterpreted as evidence for their lack of efficacy.There is a strong need for prospective RCTs comparing PMCs and fillings for managing decayed primary molar teeth. The lower levels of evidence that have been produced, however, have strength in that the clinical outcomes are consistently in favour of PMCs, despite many of the studies placing PMCs on the most damaged of the pair of teeth being analysed

Radiation-induced root surface caries restored with glass-ionomer cement placed in conventional and ART cavity preparations: Results at two years

The document attached has been archived with permission from the Australian Dental Association (8th Jan 2008). An external link to the publisher’s copy is included.Background: There are no published studies comparing the clinical performances of more-viscous glass-ionomer cement (GIC) restorations when placed using conventional and atraumatic restorative treatment (ART) cavity preparation methods to restore root surface caries. Methods: One dentist used encapsulated Fuji IX GP and Ketac-Molar to restore 72 conventional and 74 ART cavity preparations for 15 patients who had received cervicofacial radiation therapy. Two assessors evaluated the restorations at six, 12, and 24 months for retention, marginal defects and surface wear, and recurrent caries. Results: After two years, the cumulative restoration successes were 65.2 per cent for the conventional and 66.2 per cent for the ART cavity preparations, without statistical or clinical significance (P>0.50). Restoration dislodgement accounted for 82.8 per cent and marginal defects for 17.2 per cent of all failures. There were no instances of unsatisfactory restoration wear or recurrent caries observed. Teeth with three or more restored cervical surfaces accounted for 79.3 per cent of all failures (P<0.0001). Conclusions: For root surface caries restored with GIC, the use of hand instruments only with the ART method was an equally effective alternative to conventional rotary instrumentation for cavity preparation. Larger restorations had higher failures, usually from dislodgement.JY Hu, XC Chen, YQ Li, RJ Smales and KH Yi