Clinical and Radiographic Success Rate of Pulp Treated Primary Molars Restored with Stainless Steel Crown (SSC) Versus Glass Ionomer-SSC: A Double-Blind Randomized Clinical Trial

Abstract Background Glass ionomer cements (GIC) have been considered the top option to restore primary teeth by dentists. The most common supply forms are hand mixed and encapsulated GIC. There is a lack of information about the impact of different GIC supply forms on restoration survival. Methods This randomized clinical trial compared the survival rate of occlusal and occlusoproximal restorations in primary molars using two glass ionomer cements versions: hand-mixed (H/M) and encapsulated (ENC) after 24 months. Children aged 3–10 years who presented dentin caries lesions in primary molars were selected at School of Dentistry, University of São Paulo, Brazil. They were randomly assigned to groups: H /M (Fuji IX®, GC Europe) or ENC (Equia Fill®, GC Europe). The occurrence of restoration failure was evaluated by two blinded and calibrated examiners. The analyses were performed in Stata 13 (StataCorp, USA). To evaluate the primary outcome (restoration survival), we performed a survival analysis. Additionally an intention to treat (ITT) analysis were done at 24 months of follow-up. Cox Regression with shared frailty was performed to assess association between restoration failure and independent variables (α = 5%). Results A total of 324 restorations were performed in 145 children. The survival for H/M group was 58.2% and 60.1% for ENC, with no difference (p = 0.738). Occlusoproximal restorations had lower survival rate when compared to occlusal ones (HR = 3.83; p < 0.001). Conclusions The survival rate in primary molars is not influenced by the different supply forms of GIC. Also, occlusoproximal restorations present reduced performances when compared to occlusal cavities. Trial Registration This randomized clinical trial was registered on ClinicalTrials.Gov on 10/15/2014 under protocol (NCT 02274142).

Download Full-text

Stainless steel crown versus bulkfill composites for the restoration of primary molars post‐pulpectomy: 1‐year survival and acceptance results of a Randomized Clinical Trial

International Journal of Paediatric Dentistry ◽

10.1111/ipd.12785 ◽

2021 ◽

Author(s):

Isabel Cristina Olegário ◽

Carmela Rampazzo Bresolin ◽

Ana Laura Pássaro ◽

Mariana Pinheiro de Araújo ◽

Daniela Hesse ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Clinical Trial ◽

Stainless Steel ◽

Randomized Clinical Trial ◽

Primary Molars

Download Full-text

Can bulk-fill resin restorations be an alternative to resin-modified glass ionomer cement restorations in primary molars of toddlers? A randomized clinical trial protocol.

Journal Of Oral Research ◽

10.17126/joralres.2021.029 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 10 (3) ◽

pp. 1-10

Author(s):

Isabela Coelho Novaes ◽

◽

Luna Chagas Clementino ◽

Fernanda Morais Ferreira ◽

Tathiane Lenzi ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Clinical Trial ◽

Dental Caries ◽

Randomized Clinical Trial ◽

Glass Ionomer Cement ◽

Primary Molars ◽

Trial Protocol ◽

Glass Ionomer ◽

Resin Modified Glass Ionomer ◽

Ionomer Cement ◽

Untreated Dental Caries

Background: The aim of this study was to elaborate a randomized clinical trial protocol to evaluate the effectiveness of class I restorations in resin-modified glass ionomer cement (RMGIC) and bulk-fill resin in primary molars with untreated early childhood caries in toddlers. Material and Methods: A total of 59 toddlers up to 36 months old with at least two primary molar teeth with untreated dental caries of single surface on different sides of the mouth will be selected at the Pediatric Dentistry Clinics of the Faculty of Dentistry at Federal University of Minas Gerais (UFMG), Brazil. Teeth with untreated dental caries in the left and right sides of each patient’s mouth will be randomly distributed into 2 groups: Group 1 (Control): encapsulated RMGIC restoration with Riva light cure (SDI, Florida, USA) and Group 2 (Test): Filtek bulk-fill composite resin restoration (3M/ESPE, St. Paul, USA) with universal single bond adhesive system (3M/ESPE, St. Paul, USA). A single trained dentist will perform all restorative procedures. The restorations will be evaluated after 1, 6, 12, 18 and 24 months by two trained and calibrated examiners. Cost-efficacy analysis will be carried out. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis, Log-rank test, Cox regression, Poisson regression analysis, Mann-Whitney test or Kruskal-Wallis will be performed to analyze data. Conclusion: The protocol will make it possible to determine the most efficacy material for the restoration of cavities in cavities in primary molars of toddlers.

Download Full-text

Survival rate of primary molar restorations is not influenced by hand mixed or encapsulated GIC: 24 months RCT

10.21203/rs.3.rs-294548/v1 ◽

2021 ◽

Author(s):

Rodolfo de Carvalho Oliveira ◽

Lucila Basto Camargo ◽

Tatiane Fernandes Novaes ◽

Laura Regina Antunes Pontes ◽

Isabel Cristina Olegário ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Clinical Trial ◽

Survival Rate ◽

Randomized Clinical Trial ◽

Cox Regression ◽

Primary Molars ◽

Glass Ionomer Cements ◽

Glass Ionomer ◽

Primary Molar ◽

Restoration Failure ◽

The Impact

Abstract Background: Glass ionomer cements (GIC) have been considered the top option to restore primary teeth by dentists. The most common supply forms are hand-mixed and encapsulated GIC. There is a lack of information about the impact of different GIC supply forms on restoration survival. This randomized clinical trial compared the survival rate of occlusal and occlusoproximal restorations in primary molars using two of glass ionomer cements versions: hand-mixed (H/M) and encapsulated (ENC) after 24 months. Children aged 3-10 years who presented dentin caries lesions in primary molars were selected at School of Dentistry, University of São Paulo, Brazil. They were randomly assigned to groups: H /M (Fuji IX®, GC Europe) or ENC (Equia Fill®, GC Europe). The occurrence of restoration failure was evaluated by two blinded and calibrated examiners. The analyses were performed in Stata 13 (StataCorp, USA). To evaluate the primary outcome (restoration survival), we performed an intention to treat (ITT) analysis at 24 months of follow-up. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis was used to verify the survival of the restorations while Cox Regression with shared frailty was performed to assess association between restoration failure and independent variables (α=5%). Results: A total of 324 restorations were performed in 145 children. The survival for H/M group was 58.2% and 60.1% for ENC, with no difference (p=0.738). Occlusoproximal restorations had lower survival rate when compared to occlusal ones (HR=3.83; p<0.001). Conclusions: The survival rate in primary molar is not influenced by the different supply forms of GIC This randomized clinical trial was registered on ClinicalTrials.Gov on 10/15/2014 under protocol (NCT 02274142).

Download Full-text

Stainless steel or titanium mini-implants?

The Angle Orthodontist ◽

10.2319/081619-536.1 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 90 (4) ◽

pp. 587-597 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

Paulo Mecenas ◽

Daybelis Gonzalez Espinosa ◽

Paula Coutinho Cardoso ◽

David Normando

Keyword(s):

Clinical Trial ◽

Stainless Steel ◽

Success Rate ◽

Randomized Clinical Trial ◽

Risk Of Bias ◽

Current Evidence ◽

Success Rates ◽

Level Of Evidence ◽

Manual Search ◽

Mini Implants

ABSTRACT Objectives To investigate whether there was a difference in success rates when stainless steel (SS) was compared to titanium mini-implants (MIs) in orthodontic patients. Materials and Methods PubMed, Cochrane, Scopus, Web of Science, Lilacs, Google Scholar, Clinical Trials, and OpenGray were searched without restrictions. A manual search was also performed in the references of the included articles. Studies comparing the success rate between SS and titanium MIs were included. Risk of bias (RoB) was assessed using the ROBINS-I (Risk of Bias in Non-randomized Studies-of Interventions) Tool or RoB 2.0 according to the study design. The level of evidence was assessed through GRADE (Grading of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation). Results Six studies met the eligibility criteria. One study was a randomized clinical trial that evaluated extraalveolar MIs, and nonrandomized trials examined interradicular MIs. The RCT presented a low RoB, two nonrandomized trials presented a moderate risk, and three presented a high risk. The quality of the evidence was high for the randomized clinical trial and moderate for the nonrandomized trials. Most studies found no difference between materials, with good success rates for both (SS, 74.6%–100%; titanium: 80.9%–100%) and only one study, with a high RoB, showed a higher success rate with titanium MIs (90%) when compared with SS (50%). A quantitative analysis was not because of the great heterogeneity among the studies. Conclusions Although limited, the current evidence seems to show that the material used is not a major factor in the success rate of MIs. Because it has a lower cost than titanium and presents similar clinical efficiency, SS is a great material for orthodontic MIs.

Download Full-text