Sealing composite with defective margins, good care or over treatment? results of a 10-year clinical trial

Purpose: The objective of this study was to clinically evaluate sealed composite restorations after 10 years and compare their behavior with respect to controls. Methods and Materials: The cohort consisted of 20 patients aged 18 to 80 years with 80 composite restorations. All participants in the sealing and no-treatment groups presented with clinical features for the marginal adaptation that deviated from the ideal and were rated Bravo (United States Public Health Service criteria). Composites with Alfa values for the marginal adaptation were used as the positive control. Results: The marginal adaptation behavior was similar between the sealing and control (+) groups, with a high frequency of Bravo values in the 10th year (80% and 51%, respectively). Most of the no-treatment (-) group maintained the Bravo values (91%) for 10 years, although some restorations (9%) progressed to Charlie values. The anatomy parameter differed significantly between the first and 10th years, with deterioration in all three groups (p,0.05). The secondary caries parameter had a similar behavior in the three groups (p.0.05). Conclusions: Sealing the margins of the composite resin restorations had no significant effect compared with the control groups, under the conditions of this study. Sealing the restorations substantially improved the marginal staining and marginal adaptation parameters, although by the tenth year they were similar to the group without intervention.

Seal, replacement or monitoring amalgam restorations with occlusal marginal defects? Results of a 10-year clinical trial

The aim of this prospective and blind clinical trial was to assess the effectiveness of sealing localized marginal defects of amalgam restoration that were initially scheduled to be replaced. A cohort of twenty six patients with 60 amalgam restorations (n=44Class I and n=16Class II), that presented marginal defects deviating from ideal (Bravo) according to USPHS criteria, were assigned to either sealing or replacement groups: A: sealing n=20, Replacement n=20, and no treatment (n=20). Two blind examiners evaluated the restorations at baseline (K=0.74) and after ten years (K=0.84) according with USPHS criteria, in four parameters: marginal adaptation (MA), secondary caries (SC), marginal staining (MS) and teeth sensitivity (TS). Multiple comparison of restorations degradation/upgrade was analyzed by Friedman test and the comparisons within groups were performed by Wilcoxon test. After 10 years, 44 restorations were assessed (73.3%), Group A: n=14 and Group B: n=16; and Group C: n=14 sealing and replacement amalgam restorations presented similar level of quality in MA (p=0.76), SC (p=0.25) and TS (p=0.52), while in MS (p=0.007) presented better performance in replacement group after 10-years. Most of the occlusal amalgam restorations with marginal gaps showed similar long term outcomes than the restorations were sealed, replaced, or not treated over a 10-year period. Most of the restorations of the three groups were clinically acceptable, under the studied parameters. All restorations had the tendency to present downgrade/deterioration over time.