Comparasion of two minimally invasive methods on the longevity of glass ionomer cement restorations: short-term results of a pilot study

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the clinical performance of glass ionomer cement (GIC) restorations comparing two minimally invasive methods in permanent teeth after 12 months. Fifty pregnant women (second trimester of pregnancy), mean age 22 ± 5.30 years, were treated by two previously trained operators. The treatment approaches tested were: chemomechanical method (CarisolvTM; MediTeam) and atraumatic restorative treatment (ART). A split-mouth study design was used in which the two treatments were randomly placed in 50 matched pairs of permanent teeth. The chemomechanical method (CM) was the test group and the ART was the control group. The treatments were performed in Public Health Centers. The tested restorative material was a high-strength GIC (Ketac Molar; 3M/ESPE). The restorations were placed according to the ART guidelines. Two calibrated independent examiners evaluated the restorations in accordance with ART criteria. The inter-examiner kappa was 0.97. Data were analyzed using 95% confidence interval on the binomial distribution and Fisher's exact test at 5% significance level. In a 12-month follow-up, 86% of the restorations were evaluated. In the test group (CM), 100% (CI=93.3-100%) of the restorations were considered successful. In the control group (ART) 97.6% (CI=87.4-99.9%) of the restorations were considered successful and 2.4% unsuccessful (marginal defect >0.5 mm). There was no statistically significant difference between the 12-mounth success rate for both groups (Fisher's exact test: P=0.49) and between the two operators (Fisher's exact test: P=1.00). Both minimally invasive methods, chemomechanical method and ART, showed a similar clinical performance after 12 months of follow up.

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.

Differential bonds degradation of two resin-modified glass-ionomer cements in primary and permanent teeth

Objectives: To evaluate the effect of chemical degradation on bond strength of resin-modified glass-ionomer cements bonded to primary and permanent dentin. Methods: Class I cavities of permanent and primary extracted human molars were restored with two resin-modified glass-ionomer cements: Fuji 11 LC and Vitremer, and stored in water for 24 h. Half samples were immersed in 10% NaOCl aqueous solution for 5 h. Teeth were sectioned into beams and tested for microtensile bond strengths. Results were analyzed with multiple ANOVA and Tukey`s tests (p < 0.05). Analysis of debonded surfaces was performed by SEM. Results: 24 h bond strengths for Vitremer and Fuji 11 LC were similar. For Fuji 11, bond strength values were higher for primary than for permanent dentin. Vitremer bond strength was similar for both. Chemical degradation did not affect Fuji I] LC bond strength to dentin. However, decreases in bond strength were found for Vitremer groups after NaOCl immersion. Signs of glass ionomer-dentin interaction were evident by SEM analysis for Fuji 11 LC specimens. Conclusions: Vitremer and Fuji II presented similar bond strength at 24. Vitremer dentin bonds were prone to chemical degradation. Fuji II LC-dentin bonds showed typical features of glass-ionomer dentin interaction at the bonded interfaces, and were resistant to in vitro degradation. (C) 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Resistance to degradation of resin-modified glass-ionomer cements dentine bonds

Objective: To evaluate the effect of EDTA pre-treatment of dentine on resistance to degradation of the bond between dentine and resin-modified glass-ionomer cements. Methods: Sixty non-carious human molars underwent cavity preparations. Teeth were restored with Fuji II LC or Vitremer. Half of the cavities were restored following manufacturers` instructions whereas the other half was pre-treated with EDTA (0.1 M, pH 7.4) for 60 s. Teeth were stored in water at 37 degrees C for 24 h, 3 months or submitted to 10% NaOCl immersion for 5 h. Teeth were sectioned into beams (1 +/- 0.1 mm) and tested to failure in tension at 0.5 mm/min. Bond strength data (MPa) were analyzed by ANOVA and SNK multiple-comparisons tests (p < 0.05). Results: When EDTA was used for pre-treatment of dentine, higher bond strengths were observed for both cements. Degradation challenges produced a decrease in bond strength values only in the Vitremer group. This decrease was avoided when EDTA was used for dentine treatment before restoring with Vitremer. Conclusions: EDTA pre-treatment of dentine increases bond strength of resin modified glass-ionomers cements to dentine and improves resistance to degradation of the bond between Vitremer and dentine. (C) 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Fracture resistance of Class II glass-ionomer cement restorations

Purpose: To investigate in vitro the effect of retentive grooves, GIC type and insertion method on the fracture resistance of Class II glass-ionomer cement (GIC) restorations. Methods: Premolars were divided into 12 groups (n=10) according to three variables: retentive grooves [presence (PR) or absence AR)], GICs type [Ketac-Molar (KM), Fuji VIII (F8) and RelyX Luting (RX)], and insertion method [syringe injector (SI) or spoon excavator (SE)]. The specimens were subjected to fracture resistance test. Data were submitted to three-way ANOVA and multiple comparisons were performed using a Tukey test (P < 0.05). Results: Mean fracture resistance values (Kgf) +/- standard deviations (SD) were: KM (PR+SI) 65.66 +/- 2.5; KM (PR+SE) = 62.58 +/- 2.1; KM (AR+SI) = 57.11 +/- 1.9; KM (AR+SE) = 51.94 +/- 2.3; F8 (PR+SI) = 63.05 +/- 2.1; F8 (PR+SE) = 60.12 +/- 2.3; F8 (AR+SI) = 55.11 +/- 1.9; F8(AR+SE)=49.20 +/- 1.6; RX (PR+SI)=50.99 +/- 2.4; RX (PR+SE)=48.81 +/- 2.5; RX (AR+SI)=45.53 +/- 2.6; RX (AR+SE)=41.88 +/- 3.0. Statistically significant differences were observed among all the groups tested (P=0.001). There was significant difference when pooled means for GIC type were compared with retentive grooves (P=0.01) and when pooled means for retentive grooves were compared with insertion method (P=0.01).

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.

Influence of occlusal access on demineralized dentin removal in the Atraumatic Restorative Treatment (ART) approach

Purpose: To verify the influence of cavity access diameter on demineralized dentin removal in the ART approach. Methods: 40 non-carious human premolars were randomly divided into four groups. The occlusal surface was ground flat and the teeth were sectioned mesio-distally. The hemi-sections were reassembled and occlusal access preparations were carried out using ball-shaped diamonds. The resulting size of the occlusal opening was 1.0 mm, 1.4 mm, 1.6 mm and 1.8 mm for Groups A, B, C, and D, respectively. Standardized artificial carious lesions were created and demineralized dentin was excavated. After excavation, the cavities were analyzed using: (a) the tactile method, (b) caries-detection dye to stain demineralized dentin, as proposed by Smales & Fang, and (c) Demineralized Tissue Removal index, as proposed in this study. Statistical analysis was performed using Fisher, Spearman correlation coefficient, kappa, Kruskal-Wallis and Miller tests (P < 0.05). Results: The three methods of evaluation showed no significant difference between Groups A vs. B, and C vs. D, while statistically significant differences were observed between Groups A vs. C, A vs. D, B vs. C and B vs. D. Based on the results of this study, the size of occlusal access significantly affected the efficacy of demineralized tissue removal.