Influence of Isolation Technique on the Survival of Resin-Modified Glass-Ionomer Restorations in Primary Molars: A 9-Months Randomized Controlled Trial

Sabrina  Wilde; Caroline Simão  Sarti; Julia  Toniolo; Bethania Paludo  Oliveira; Daiana Back  Gouvea; Nicole Marchioro  dos Santos; Maria Luiza Vieira  Borges; Jonas Almeida  Rodrigues

Authors

Sabrina Wilde
Caroline Simão Sarti
Julia Toniolo
Bethania Paludo Oliveira
Daiana Back Gouvea
Nicole Marchioro dos Santos
Maria Luiza Vieira Borges
Jonas Almeida Rodrigues

Keywords:

Dental Caries, Survival Analysis, Deciduous Tooth, Rubber Dams

Abstract

Objective: To compare the survival of occlusal and occlusal-proximal restorations performed with resin-modified glass-ionomer cement (RMGIC) in deciduous molars using rubber dam and cotton rolls isolation. Material and Methods: Ninety-two patients were included and 200 deciduous molars with cavitated occlusal or occlusoproximal dentin caries lesions were randomized into two groups: cotton rolls (n = 100) and rubber dam (n = 100) and RMGIC restorations were placed. At baseline and in the follow-up visit, presence, severity and activity of caries lesions were registered. Two independent, blinded examiners evaluated the treated teeth clinically using the USPHS criteria and radiographically after 9 months. Descriptive analysis, survival curve (log-rank test) and Cox regression were performed to assess risk factors related to failure. Results: Out of the 179 teeth (92 cotton rolls group and 87 rubber dam group) evaluated at 9-month follow-up period. No lesion progression was observed radiographically. The overall treatment success rate was 85.47% (83.47% for cotton rolls and 87.35 rubber dam group). No significant difference between isolation methods was observed in the log-rank test (p = 0.16). Cox regression showed no risk factors related to failure. Conclusion: No difference was found in the survival of occlusal and occlusal-proximal restorations performed with RMGIC in deciduous molars using a rubber dam and cotton rolls isolation after a 9-month follow-up period.

References

Schwendicke F, Frencken JE, Bjørndal, Maltz M, Manton DJ, Ricketts D, et al. Managing carious lesions: Consensus recommendations on carious tissue removal. Adv Dent Res 2016; 28(2):58-67. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022034516639271

Ricketts D, Lamont T, Innes NPT, Kidd E, Clarkson JE. Operative caries management in adults and children. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2013; (3):CD003808. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD003808.pub3

Li T, Zhai X, Song F, Zhu H. Selective versus non- selective removal for dental caries: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Acta Odontol Scand 2018; 76(2):135-40. https://doi.org/10.1080/00016357.2017.1392602

Casagrande L, Bento LW, Dalpian DM, Garcia-Godoy F, de Araujo FB. Indirect pulp treatment in primary teeth: 4-year results. Am J Dent 2010; 23(1):34-8.

Cochran MA, Miller CH, Scheldrake MA. The efficacy of the rubber dam as a barrier to the spread of microorganisms during dental treatment. J Am Dent Assoc 1989; 119(1):141-4. https://doi.org/10.14219/jada.archive.1989.0131

Hill EE, Rubel BS. Do dental educators need to improve their approach to teaching rubber dam use? J Dent Educ 2008; 72(10)1177-81

Carvalho TS, Sampaio FC, Diniz A, Bönecker M, Van Amerongen WE. Two years survival rate of Class II ART restorations in primary molars using two ways to avoid saliva contamination. Int J Paediatr Dent 2010; 20:419-25. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-263X.2010.01060.x

Kemoli AM, Van Amerongen WE, Opinya GN. Short communication: Influence of different isolation methods on the survival of proximal ART restorations in primary molars after two years. Eur Arch Paediatr Dent 2010; 11(3):136-9. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03262729

Ma J. Influence of rubber dam isolation on the performance of restorations for teeth wedge-shaped defects. Chinese Community Doctors 2012; 14(309):164.

Pires CW, Pedrotti D, Lenzi TL, Soares FZM, Ziegemann PK, Rocha RO. Is there a best conventional material for restoring posterior primary teeth? A network meta-analysis. Braz Oral Res 2018; 32:e10. https://doi.org/10.1590/1807-3107bor-2018.vol32.0010

Cajazeira MRR, Sabóia TC, Maia LC. Influence of the operatory field isolation technique on tooth-colored direct dental restorations. Am J Dent 2014; 27(3):155-9.

Franzon R, Guimaraes LF, Magalhaes CE, Haas AN, Araujo FB. Outcomes of one-step incomplete and complete excavation in primary teeth: a 24-month randomized controlled trial. Caries Res 2014; 48(5):376-83. https://doi.org/10.1159/000357628

Nyvad B, Baelum V. Nyvad criteria for caries lesion activity and severity assessment: a validated approach for clinical management and research. Caries Res 2018; 52(5):397-405. https://doi.org/10.1159/000480522

Ekstrand KR, Bakhshandeh A, Martignon S. Treatment of proximal superficial caries lesions on primary molar teeth with resin infiltration and fluoride varnish versus fluoride varnish only: efficacy after 1 year. Caries Res 2010; 44(1):41-6. https://doi.org/10.1159/000275573

Barmes D. Foreword for proceedings of the IADR symposium minimal intervention techniques for dental caries. J Public Health Dent 1996; 56(3):131-6.

Trombelli L, Farina R, Silva CO, Tatakis DN. Plaque-induced gingivitis: Case definition and diagnostic considerations. J Clin Periodontol 2018; 45(Suppl 20):S44-S67. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcpe.12939

Waggoner WF. Restoring primary anterior teeth: updated for 2014. Pediatr Dent 2015; 37(2):163-70.

Goettems ML, Zborowski EJ, Costa FD, Costa VP, Torriani DD. Nonpharmacologic intervention on the prevention of pain and anxiety during pediatric dental care: a systematic review. Acad Pediatr 2017; 17(2):110-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acap.2016.08.012

Demarco FF, Collares K, Correa MB, Cenci MS, Moraes RR, Opdam NJM. Should my composite restorations last forever? Why are they failing? Braz Oral Res 2017; 31(suppl 1):e56. https://doi.org/10.1590/1807-3107BOR-2017.vol31.0056

Chisini LA, Collares K, Cademartori MG, de Oliveira LJC, Conde MCM, Demarco FF, et al. Restorations in primary teeth: a systematic review on survival and reasons for failures. Int J Paediatr Dent 2018; 28(2):123-39. https://doi.org/10.1111/ipd.12346

Wang Y, Li C, Yuan H, Wong MC, Zou J, Shi Z, et al. Rubber dam isolation for restorative treatment in dental patients. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2016; 9(9):CD009858. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD009858.pub2

Chadwick B, Treasure E, Dummer P, Dunstan F, Gilmour A, Jones R, et al. Challenges with studies investigating longevity of dental restorations - A critique of a systematic review. J Dent 2001; 29(3):155-61. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0300-5712(01)00003-3