Clinical evaluation of two materials in the restoration of abfraction lesions

Aim: To evaluate the clinical performance of a composite resin (CR) and a resin-modified glassionomer cement (RMGIC) for the treatment of abfraction lesions. Methods: Thirty patients with abfraction lesions in at least two premolar teeth were selected and invited to participate in this study. All restorations were made within the same clinical time frame. One tooth was restored with CR Z100TM (3M, St. Paul, MN, USA), and the other was restored with RMGIC VitremerTM (3M). The restorations were assessed immediately and 1, 6 and 12 months after the restoration, using modified US Public Health Service (USPHS) criteria: marginal integrity, marginal discoloration, wear, retention, secondary caries and hypersensitivity. The statistical analysis was based on Friedman ANOVA test and Mann-Whitney test, considering p<0.05 for statistical significance. Results: Both materials demonstrated satisfactory clinical performance after one year. In the individual analysis of each material, there was a significant difference (p<0.05) in the criteria marginal integrity and wear, for both CR and RMGIC. RMGIC exhibited more damage one year after the restoration. Comparing both materials, it was found a significant difference only for marginal discoloration, while the RMGIC restorations showed the worst prognosis after a year of evaluation. There was no significant difference in the number of retentions, caries or hypersensitivity between CR and RMGIC. Conclusions: It was concluded that CR exhibited the best clinical performance according to the cost-effectiveness and evaluation criteria used in this study.

Hardpan and maize root distribution under conservation and conventional tillage in Agro-Ecological Zone IIA, Zambia

Hardpans (plough/hoe pans) are commonly believed to restrict plant root growth and crop yields under conventional small-scale agriculture in sub-Saharan Africa. This study questions the notion of widespread hardpans in Zambia and their remedy under conservation tillage. Soil penetration resistance was measured in 8x12 grids, covering 80 cm wide and 60 cm deep profiles in 32 soil pits. Large and fine maize roots were counted in 8x6 grids. Soil samples from mid-rows were analysed for pH, exchangeable H+, exchangeable Al3+, cation exchange capacity, total N and extractable P (Bray 1) at six depths from 0-10 to 50-60 cm. Cultivation-induced hardpans were not detected. Soils under conservation tillage were more compact at 5 cm depth than soils under conventional tillage. No differences in root distributions between conservation and conventional tillage were found. Maize ( Zea mays L. ) roots were largely confined to a relatively small soil volume of about 30 cm x 30 cm x 30 cm. Root growth appeared to be restricted by a combination of low concentrations of N and P. Soil acidity and Al saturation appeared to play a minor role in root distribution. L-shaped taproots in soils under manual tillage reported earlier were not necessarily due to hardpans, but may rather be caused by temporarily dry, impenetrable subsoils early in the rain season. There is no scientific basis for the recommendation given to farmers by agricultural extension workers to “break the hardpan” in fields under manual or animal tillage in the study areas.