Dimensions of Occlusoproximal Cavitated Carious Lesions as a Cut-Off Point for Restorative Decision in Primary Teeth

Objective: To investigate whether the dimensions of cavitated dentin carious lesions on the occlusoproximal surfaces of primary teeth could predict the location of cement-enamel junction (CEJ). Material and Methods: Two hundred extracted primary molars were selected and digital images were obtained. The teeth were set in arch models for clinical measurement. The cervical-occlusal (CO) and buccal-lingual/palatal (BL/P) cavities’ dimensions were obtained by digital (Image J) and clinical (periodontal millimeter probe) assessments. The cervical margin location was also determined. The thresholds (cut-off points) were determined by sensitivity, specificity and the areas under the receiver operating characteristics curves (Az) for the two methods. Pearson's correlation coefficient was used to investigate the correlation between clinical and digital measurements. Logistic regression analysis was performed to evaluate the association between the dimensions and cervical margin location. Results: There was a strong correlation between methods for all measurements (CO: r=0.90, VL/P: r=0.95). Cavities with BL/P distance higher than 4.5 mm and CO dimension higher than 3.5 mm had a lower chance of presenting the cervical limit above the CEJ, irrespective of the measurement method. Conclusion: CO and VL/P dimensions could be used to predict the CEJ location and, ultimately, as a clinical parameter for restorative decision-making

Choosing the Criteria for Clinical Evaluation of Composite Restorations: An Analysis of Impact on Reliabilty and Treatment Decision

Objective: To assess the reproducibility of two clinical criteria for the evaluation of restorations in primary teeth and the impact on treatment decision. Material and Methods: A cross-sectional study was performed selecting 71 resin-based composite restorations placed in primary molars of children who had sought dental treatment at a dental school. Two trained examiners evaluated independently the restorations using modified FDI and USPHS criteria. All restorations were assessed separately with each system in random order to avoid memory bias. Kappa statistics were used to determine inter-examiner reliability considering each parameter of both criteria and score final about treatment decision. McNemar test was used to compare the treatment decision with two criteria. The significance level was set at 5%. Results: Kappa values ranged from 0.28 to 0.93 with USPHS and 0.28 to 0.88 with FDI, considering each parameter separately. Inter- examiner agreement for treatment decision was excellent for both criteria (Kappa: 0.85-0.90). For clinical decision-making, no difference between criteria was found, irrespective of examiner. Conclusion: Low inter- examiner agreement for evaluation of each parameter of USPHS and FDI criteria does not reflect on reproducibility for treatment decision. Both criteria may be suitable for evaluation of composite restorations in primary teeth

Reciprocating and rotatory NiTi instruments used for root canal preparation of primary teeth: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Objective: To compare the root canal preparation of primary teeth with reciprocating and rotary NiTi instruments. Material and Methods: Electronic databases (PubMed/MEDLINE, Web of Science, TRIP, Lilacs, Embase, and Scopus) were systematically searched until October 2020. In vitro studies comparing the cleaning ability, debris extrusion, file deformation, or working time of rotary and reciprocating NiTi instruments in primary teeth were evaluated. Two reviewers independently selected the studies, extracted the data, and assessed the risk of bias. Meta-analyses were conducted using a random-effects model to calculate pooled mean differences between reciprocating and rotary NiTi instruments considering the outcomes: working time (minutes) and debris extrusion (milligrams). Statistical analyses were performed using RevMan 5.3 at a significance level of 5%. Results: From 4,417 potentially relevant studies, 10 were included in the systematic review, and 8 considered in the meta-analyses. There was no significant difference between reciprocating and rotary NiTi instruments considering debris extrusion [3 data sets; effect size: -0.11 (-0.25-0.04); p=0.15] and working time [6 data sets; effect size: -0.37 (-0.98-0.24); p=0.24]. The heterogeneity found was moderate to high. The risk of bias was low in most studies (50.0% of all items across studies). Conclusion: There is no scientific evidence showing superiority of reciprocating or rotary NiTi instruments used for root canal preparation in primary teeth

Reciprocating and Rotatory NiTi Instruments Used for Root Canal Preparation of Primary Teeth: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Objective: To compare the root canal preparation of primary teeth with reciprocating and rotary NiTi instruments. Material and Methods: Electronic databases (PubMed/MEDLINE, Web of Science, TRIP, Lilacs, Embase, and Scopus) were systematically searched until October 2020. In vitro studies comparing the cleaning ability, debris extrusion, file deformation, or working time of rotary and reciprocating NiTi instruments in primary teeth were evaluated. Two reviewers independently selected the studies, extracted the data, and assessed the risk of bias. Meta-analyses were conducted using a random-effects model to calculate pooled mean differences between reciprocating and rotary NiTi instruments considering the outcomes: working time (minutes) and debris extrusion (milligrams). Statistical analyses were performed using RevMan 5.3 at a significance level of 5%. Results: From 4,417 potentially relevant studies, 10 were included in the systematic review, and 8 considered in the meta-analyses. There was no significant difference between reciprocating and rotary NiTi instruments considering debris extrusion [3 data sets; effect size: -0.11 (-0.25–0.04); p=0.15] and working time [6 data sets; effect size: -0.37 (-0.98–0.24); p=0.24]. The heterogeneity found was moderate to high. The risk of bias was low in most studies (50.0% of all items across studies). Conclusion: There is no scientific evidence showing superiority of reciprocating or rotary NiTi instruments used for root canal preparation in primary teeth

Choosing the criteria for clinical evaluation of composite restorations: An analysis of impact on reliabilty and treatment decision

Objective: To assess the reproducibility of two clinical criteria for the evaluation of restorations in primary teeth and the impact on treatment decision. Material and Methods: A cross-sectional study was performed selecting 71 resin-based composite restorations placed in primary molars of children who had sought dental treatment at a dental school. Two trained examiners evaluated independently the restorations using modified FDI and USPHS criteria. All restorations were assessed separately with each system in random order to avoid memory bias. Kappa statistics were used to determine inter-examiner reliability considering each parameter of both criteria and score final about treatment decision. McNemar test was used to compare the treatment decision with two criteria. The significance level was set at 5%. Results: Kappa values ranged from 0.28 to 0.93 with USPHS and 0.28 to 0.88 with FDI, considering each parameter separately. Inter-examiner agreement for treatment decision was excellent for both criteria (Kappa: 0.85-0.90). For clinical decision-making, no difference between criteria was found, irrespective of examiner. Conclusion: Low inter-examiner agreement for evaluation of each parameter of USPHS and FDI criteria does not reflect on reproducibility for treatment decision. Both criteria may be suitable for evaluation of composite restorations in primary teeth

Shortening of etching time of the dentin in primary teeth restorations: a randomized clinical trial

The aim of this study was to investigate the influence of shortening of etching time for dentin on the restoration survival after selective carious tissue removal in primary molars. This two-arm randomized clinical trial included sixty-two subjects (5–8 year-old) and 100 primary molars presenting moderate dentin carious lesions on occlusal surface. The sample was randomly assigned into groups previously to adhesive application (Adper Single Bond 2; 3M ESPE): etching time recommended by manufacturer (15 s) or reduced (7 s). Resin composite (Filtek Bulk Fill Posterior Restorative; 3M ESPE) was inserted in a single increment for all restorations. Restorations were evaluated at 1, 6, 12, and 18 months using FDI criteria. Survival estimates for restorations’ longevity were evaluated with Kaplan-Meier method. Multivariate Cox regression analysis with shared frailty was used to assess the factors associated with failures (p < 0.05). The etching time did not influence the restorations’ survival (HR 0.35 95%CI 0.11–1.12; p = 0.06). Mean estimated time of survival was 17.6 months (95%CI, 17.2–17.9). The survival rates at the 18-month follow-up were 75.7% and 91.4% (AFR: 16.9% and 5.7%) when primary dentin was acid etched for 15 and 7 s, respectively (log-rank p = 0.06). In conclusion, the etching time for dentin did not influence the clinical behavior of adhesives restorations. However, there was a tendency for better clinical outcome when using etching time of 7 s

Choosing the criteria for clinical evaluation of composite restorations : an analysis of impact on reliabilty and treatment decision

Objective: To assess the reproducibility of two clinical criteria for the evaluation of restorations in primary teeth and the impact on treatment decision. Material and Methods: A cross-sectional study was performed selecting 71 resin-based composite restorations placed in primary molars of children who had sought dental treatment at a dental school. Two trained examiners evaluated independently the restorations using modified FDI and USPHS criteria. All restorations were assessed separately with each system in random order to avoid memory bias. Kappa statistics were used to determine inter-examiner reliability considering each parameter of both criteria and score final about treatment decision. McNemar test was used to compare the treatment decision with two criteria. The significance level was set at 5%. Results: Kappa values ranged from 0.28 to 0.93 with USPHS and 0.28 to 0.88 with FDI, considering each parameter separately. Inter-examiner agreement for treatment decision was excellent for both criteria (Kappa: 0.85-0.90). For clinical decision-making, no difference between criteria was found, irrespective of examiner. Conclusion: Low inter-examiner agreement for evaluation of each parameter of USPHS and FDI criteria does not reflect on reproducibility for treatment decision. Both criteria may be suitable for evaluation of composite restorations in primary teeth