Ten-year survival of ART restorations in permanent posterior teeth

This study evaluated the 10-year clinical performance of high-viscosity glass-ionomer cement placed in posterior permanent teeth by means of the Atraumatic Restorative Treatment (ART) approach. One operator placed 167 single- and 107 multiple-surface restorations in 43 high-risk caries pregnant women (mean decayed teeth = 9.8 +/- 5.5). Examinations were performed at 1-, 2-, and 10-year intervals according to ART criteria. In the last evaluation, the US Public Health Service (USPHS) criteria were also used. After 10 years, 129 restorations (47.1%) were evaluated and achieved a cumulative survival rate of 49.0% (SE 7.2%). The 10-year survival of single- and multiple-surface ART restorations assessed using the ART criteria were 65.2% (SE 7.3%) and 30.6% (SE 9.9%), respectively. This difference was significant (jackknife SE of difference; p < 0.05). Using the USPHS criteria, the 10-year survival of single- and multiple-surface ART restorations were 86.5% and 57.6%, respectively. The primary causes of failure were total loss (9.3%) and marginal defects (5.4%). The survival rates observed, especially for the single-surface restorations, confirm the potential of the ART approach for restoring and saving posterior permanent teeth.

Clinical evaluation of two packable posterior composites A five-year follow-up

Background. Research has suggested that packable resin-based composites inserted with a placement technique similar to amalgam condensation can reduce the sensitivity associated with posterior restorations. The authors evaluated the clinical performance, including associated sensitivity, of two packable composites in a randomized five-year clinical trial. Methods. A single operator randomly placed two restorations in each of 33 patients: one restoration consisting of Alert (Jeneric/Pentron, Wallingford, Conn.) and the other consisting of SureFil (Dentsply/Caulk, Milford, Del.). There were 30 Class I and 36 Class II restorations. Two independent evaluators evaluated the restorations by using modified U.S.; Public Health Service criteria. The authors analyzed data by means of the Fisher, chi(2) and McNemar tests at P < .05. Results. Of 60 restorations evaluated at five years, two Class II restorations (one SureFil, one Alert) failed. All other restorations received the highest score possible for sensitivity and vitality. The only difference between the composites at the five-year recall was the significantly better surface texture of SureFil. The authors observed significantly different scores between the baseline and at five years for marginal discoloration (Alert and SureFil), surface texture (Alert and SureFil) and color (SureFil). Conclusions. Both packable resin-based composites showed excellent durability during the five-year follow-up. Clinical Implications. The investigated resin-based composites are suitable for posterior restorations.

Remote probe microphone measurement to verify hearing aid performance

We assessed the feasibility of obtaining probe microphone measurements of hearing aids at a distance. Face-to-face and remote probe microphone measurements were carried out in 60 hearing aid users (mean age 67 yrs) with uni- or bilateral hearing losses (105 ears tested). The participant and a facilitator were located in a room equipped with a probe microphone system interfaced to a PC. Desktop videoconferencing and application sharing was used to allow an audiologist in another room to instruct the facilitator and control the equipment via the LAN. There were significant correlations between face-to-face and remote real ear unaided response (REUR), aided response (REAR) and insertion gain (REIG) at seven discrete frequencies from 250 to 6000 Hz. Differences between face-to-face and remote responses were within the reported variability for probe microphone measurements themselves. The results show that remote probe microphone measurements are feasible and might improve the quality of public hearing aid services and professional training in Brazil.