A study of primary teeth restored by intracoronal restorations in children participating in an undergraduate teaching programme at Cork University Dental School and Hospital, Ireland

Aim: To study the outcomes for restored primary molar teeth; to examine outcomes in relation to tooth type involved, intracoronal restoration complexity and to the material used. Materials and methods: Design: Retrospective study of primary molar teeth restored by intracoronal restorations. A series of restored primary molar teeth for children aged 6-12 years was studied. The principal outcome measure was failure of initial restoration (re-restoration or extraction). Three hundred patient records were studied to include three equal groups of primary molar teeth restored with amalgam, composite or glass ionomer, respectively. Restorative materials, the restoration type, simple (single surface) or complex (multi-surface) restoration, and tooth notation were recorded. Subsequent interventions were examined. Data were coded and entered into a Microsoft Excel database and analysis undertaken using SPSS v.18. Statistical differences were tested using the c2 test of statistical significance. Results: Of the 300 teeth studied, 61 restoration failures were recorded with 11 of those extracted. No significant differences were found between outcomes for upper first, upper second, lower first or lower second primary molars. Outcomes for simple primary teeth restored by intracoronal restorations were significantly better than those for complex intracoronal restorations (P = 0.042). Teeth originally restored with amalgam accounted for 19.7% of the 61 failures, composite for 29.5%, while teeth restored with glass ionomer represented 50.8% of all restoration failures. The differences were significant (P = 0.012). Conclusions: The majority (79.7%) of the 300 restored primary teeth studied were successful, and 3.7% teeth were extracted. Restorations involving more than one surface had almost twice the failure rate of single surface restorations. The difference was significant. Significant differences in failure rates for the three dental materials studied were recorded. Amalgam had the lowest failure rate while the failure rate with glass ionomer was the highest.

Risk indicators associated with root caries in independently living older adults

Objective: To determine the risk indicators associated with root caries experience in a cohort of independently living older adults in Ireland. Methods: The data reported in the present study were obtained from a prospective longitudinal study conducted in a cohort of independently living older adults (n = 334). Each subject underwent an oral examination, performed by a single calibrated examiner, to determine the root caries index and other clinical variables. Questionnaires were used to collect data on oral hygiene habits, diet, smoking and alcohol habits and education level. A regression analysis with the outcome variable of root caries experience (no/yes) was conducted. Results: A total of 334 older dentate adults with a mean age of 69.1 years were examined. 53.3% had at least one filled or decayed root surface. The median root caries index was 3.13 (IQR 0.00, 13.92). The results from the multivariate regression analysis indicated that individuals with poor plaque control (OR 9.59, 95% CI 3.84–24.00), xerostomia (OR 18.49, 95% CI 2.00–172.80), two or more teeth with coronal decay (OR 4.50, 95% CI 2.02–10.02) and 37 or more exposed root surfaces (OR 5.48, 95% CI 2.49–12.01) were more likely to have been affected by root caries. Conclusions: The prevalence of root caries was high in this cohort. This study suggests a correlation between root caries and the variables poor plaque control, xerostomia, coronal decay (≥2 teeth affected) and exposed root surfaces (≥37). The significance of these risk indicators and the resulting prediction model should be further evaluated in a prospective study of root caries incidence. Clinical significance Identification of risk indicators for root caries in independently living older adults would facilitate dental practitioners to identify those who would benefit most from interventions aimed at prevention.

The use of atraumatic restorative treatment in elderly patients: a randomised controlled clinical trial

Objectives: to assess elderly patients’ dental status and dental habits and compare the survival rates, impact on patients’ quality of life and cost-effectiveness of Atraumatic Restorative Treatment (ART) and a conventional treatment (CT) to restore carious lesions in an elderly population. Methods: In this randomised clinical trial, 99 independently living adults (65-90 yrs) with carious lesions were randomly allocated to receive either ART or CT. Details of restored, missing and carious teeth were recorded and patients answered some questions about their oral hygiene and dental attendance habits. Direct and indirect costs were measured based on treatment time, materials and labour. Effectiveness was measured using restoration survival percentage after one year. The survival of restorations was assessed 6 months and one year after restoration placement by an independent examiner. Oralhealth related quality of life (OHRQoL) was assessed using the OHIP-14 at baseline and 2 months after treatment together with a global transition statement. Results: The patient sample comprised 46 (46.46%) male and 53 (53.54) female participants at baseline, with a mean age of 73.18 (SD=6.76). The mean DMFT of the entire sample was 27.10. Ninety patients and 268 restorations could be assessed after one year, 127 ART (46 patients) and 141 conventional restorations (44 patients). 93.7% and 97.2% of the restorations placed were considered successful in the ART and CT groups, respectively. The OHIP scores did not change dramatically 2 months after treatment, in either group. The global transition scale showed an improvement in overall oral health after treatment for the majority of patients. The ART were more cost-effective compared to the CT restorations. Conclusions: ART presented survival rates similar to CT after 1 year and was a more cost-effective alternative to treat the elderly.

Adhesives for fixed orthodontic bands

Background: Orthodontic treatment involves using fixed or removable appliances (dental braces) to correct the positions of teeth. It has been shown that the quality of treatment result obtained with fixed appliances is much better than with removable appliances. Fixed appliances are, therefore, favoured by most orthodontists for treatment. The success of a fixed orthodontic appliance depends on the metal attachments (brackets and bands) being attached securely to the teeth so that they do not become loose during treatment. Brackets are usually attached to the front and side teeth, whereas bands (metal rings that go round the teeth) are more commonly used on the back teeth (molars). A number of adhesives are available to attach bands to teeth and it is important to understand which group of adhesives bond most reliably, as well as reducing or preventing dental decay during the treatment period. :Objectives: To evaluate the effectiveness of the adhesives used to attach bands to teeth during fixed appliance treatment, in terms of: (1) how often the bands come off during treatment; and (2) whether they protect the banded teeth against decay during fixed appliance treatment. Search methods: The following electronic databases were searched: Cochrane Oral Health's Trials Register (searched 2 June 2016), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2016, Issue 5) in the Cochrane Library (searched 2 June 2016), MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to 2 June 2016) and EMBASE Ovid (1980 to 2 June 2016). We searched ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform for ongoing trials. No restrictions were placed on the language or date of publication when searching the electronic databases. Selection criteria: Randomised and controlled clinical trials (RCTs and CCTs) (including split-mouth studies) of adhesives used to attach orthodontic bands to molar teeth were selected. Patients with full arch fixed orthodontic appliance(s) who had bands attached to molars were included. Data collection and analysis: All review authors were involved in study selection, validity assessment and data extraction without blinding to the authors, adhesives used or results obtained. All disagreements were resolved by discussion. Main results: Five RCTs and three CCTs were identified as meeting the review's inclusion criteria. All the included trials were of split-mouth design. Four trials compared chemically cured zinc phosphate and chemically cured glass ionomer; three trials compared chemically cured glass ionomer cement with light cured compomer; one trial compared chemically cured glass ionomer with a chemically cured glass phosphonate. Data analysis was often inappropriate within the studies meeting the inclusion criteria. Authors' conclusions: There is insufficient high quality evidence with regard to the most effective adhesive for attaching orthodontic bands to molar teeth. Further RCTs are required.