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.

Using parent report to assess early lexical production in children exposed to more than one language

Limited expressive vocabulary skills in young children are considered to be the first warning signs of a potential Specific Language Impairment (SLI) (Ellis & Thal, 2008). In bilingual language learning environments, the expressive vocabulary size in each of the child’s developing languages is usually smaller compared to the number of words produced by monolingual peers (e.g. De Houwer, 2009). Nonetheless, evidence shows children’s total productive lexicon size across both languages to be comparable to monolingual peers’ vocabularies (e.g. Pearson et al., 1993; Pearson & Fernandez, 1994). Since there is limited knowledge as to which level of bilingual vocabulary size should be considered as a risk factor for SLI, the effects of bilingualism and language-learning difficulties on early lexical production are often confounded. The compilation of profiles for early vocabulary production in children exposed to more than one language, and their comparison across language pairs, should enable more accurate identification of vocabulary delays that signal a risk for SLI in bilingual populations. These considerations prompted the design of a methodology for assessing early expressive vocabulary in children exposed to more than one language, which is described in the present chapter. The implementation of this methodological framework is then outlined by presenting the design of a study that measured the productive lexicons of children aged 24-36 months who were exposed to different language pairs, namely Maltese and English, Irish and English, Polish and English, French and Portuguese, Turkish and German as well as English and Hebrew. These studies were designed and coordinated in COST Action IS0804 Working Group 3 (WG3) and will be described in detail in a series of subsequent publications. Expressive vocabulary size was measured through parental report, by employing the vocabulary checklist of the MacArthur-Bates Communicative Development Inventory: Words and Sentences (CDI: WS) (Fenson et al., 1993, 2007) and its adaptations to the participants’ languages. Here we describe the novelty of the study’s methodological design, which lies in its attempt to harmonize the use of vocabulary checklist adaptations, together with parental questionnaires addressing language exposure and developmental history, across participant groups characterized by different language exposure variables. This chapter outlines the various methodological considerations that paved the way for meaningful cross-linguistic comparison of the participants’ expressive lexicon sizes. In so doing, it hopes to provide a template for and encourage further research directed at establishing a threshold for SLI risk in children exposed to more than one language.