Absence of carious lesions at margins of glass-ionomer cement and amalgam restorations: An update of systematic review evidence

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>This article aims to update the existing systematic review evidence elicited by Mickenautsch et al. up to 18 January 2008 (published in the European Journal of Paediatric Dentistry in 2009) and addressing the review question of whether, in the same dentition and same cavity class, glass-ionomer cement (GIC) restored cavities show less recurrent carious lesions on cavity margins than cavities restored with amalgam.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>The systematic literature search was extended beyond the original search date and a further hand-search and reference check was done. The quality of accepted trials was assessed, using updated quality criteria, and the risk of bias was investigated in more depth than previously reported. In addition, the focus of quantitative synthesis was shifted to single datasets extracted from the accepted trials.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>The database search (up to 10 August 2010) identified 1 new trial, in addition to the 9 included in the original systematic review, and 11 further trials were included after a hand-search and reference check. Of these 21 trials, 11 were excluded and 10 were accepted for data extraction and quality assessment. Thirteen dichotomous datasets of primary outcomes and 4 datasets with secondary outcomes were extracted. Meta-analysis and cumulative meta-analysis were used in combining clinically homogenous datasets. The overall results of the computed datasets suggest that GIC has a higher caries-preventive effect than amalgam for restorations in permanent teeth. No difference was found for restorations in the primary dentition.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>This outcome is in agreement with the conclusions of the original systematic review. Although the findings of the trials identified in this update may be considered to be less affected by attrition- and publication bias, their risk of selection- and detection/performance bias is high. Thus, verification of the currently available results requires further high-quality randomised control trials.</p

The Hall Technique; a randomized controlled clinical trial of a novel method of managing carious primary molars in general dental practice: acceptability of the technique and outcomes at 23 months

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Scotland has high levels of untreated dental caries in primary teeth. The Hall Technique is a simplified method of managing carious primary molars using preformed metal crowns (PMCs) cemented with no local anaesthesia, caries removal or tooth preparation. This study compared the acceptability of the Hall Technique for children, their carers, and dentists, and clinical outcomes for the technique, with conventional restorations.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>General dental practice based, split mouth, randomized controlled trial (132 children, aged 3–10). General dental practitioners (GDPs, n = 17) in Tayside, Scotland (dmft 2.7) placed conventional (Control) restorations in carious primary molars, and Hall Technique PMCs on the contralateral molar (matched clinically and radiographically). Dentists ranked the degree of discomfort they felt the child experienced for each procedure; then children, their carers and dentists stated which technique they preferred. The teeth were followed up clinically and radiographically.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>128 conventional restorations were placed on 132 control teeth, and 128 PMCs on 132 intervention teeth. Using a 5 point scale, 118 Hall PMCs (89%) were rated as no apparent discomfort up to mild, not significant; for Control restorations the figure was 103 (78%). Significant, unacceptable discomfort was recorded for two Hall PMCs (1.5%) and six Control restorations (4.5%). 77% of children, 83% of carers and 81% of dentists who expressed a preference, preferred the Hall technique, and this was significant (Chi square, p < 0.0001). There were 124 children (94% of the initial sample) with a minimum follow-up of 23 months. The Hall PMCs outperformed the Control restorations:</p> <p>a) 'Major' failures (signs and symptoms of irreversible pulpal disease): 19 Control restorations (15%); three Hall PMCs (2%) (P < 0.000);</p> <p>b) 'Minor' failures (loss of restoration, caries progression): 57 Control restorations (46%); six Hall PMCs (5%) (P < 0.000)</p> <p>c) Pain: 13 Control restorations (11%); two Hall PMCs (2%) (P = 0.003).</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>The Hall Technique was preferred to conventional restorations by the majority of children, carers and GDPs. After two years, Hall PMCs showed more favourable outcomes for pulpal health and restoration longevity than conventional restorations. The Hall Technique appears to offer an effective treatment option for carious primary molar teeth.</p> <p>Trial registration number</p> <p>Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN47267892 – A randomized controlled trial in primary care of a novel method of using preformed metal crowns to manage decay in primary molar teeth: the Hall technique.</p