General dentists' perceptions and clinical management of hypomineralised second primary molars (HSPM) in Ireland.

PURPOSE: This questionnaire aimed to explore how general dentists in the Republic of Ireland perceive and manage hypomineralised second primary molars (HSPM). METHODS: Following ethical approval, a validated structured questionnaire containing 19 questions was sent to Irish dentists using Survey Monkey. Questions on awareness, dentist's experience, barriers to care and clinical scenarios with different treatment options were included. Binary outcomes and independent variables were compared using logistic regression analysis (α = 5%). RESULTS: Responses from 279 general dentists were analysed. The majority of dentists were aware of HSPM (72%) and most dentists felt confident in diagnosing HSPM (71%). Dentists who had practiced for ≥ 15 years were significantly more likely to document HSPM frequently compared to those with less experience (OR 0.29; p = 0.012). No significant association was found between confidence in HSPM diagnosis and other variables, such as age group, years of practice and workplace. Dentists not working in private practice reported to be less comfortable in the management of HSPM (OR 0.49; p = 0.030). The most cited barrier to management of HSPM was child's behaviour. A broad variation was observed in the clinical scenarios, in particular when treatment planning more severe HSPM. CONCLUSIONS: In general, Irish dentists are aware of HSPM and are confident in diagnosis and management. Variation existed in treatment options reflecting the disparity that exists in clinical management.

Giomer composite compared to glass ionomer in occlusoproximal ART restorations of primary molars: 24-month RCT.

BACKGROUND: Occlusoproximal restorations of primary molars usually fail, so it is necessary to investigate new materials that may overcome this challenge. Thus, this trial aimed to evaluate the longevity of occlusoproximal ART restorations in primary molars using a glass ionomer cement - GIC (Equia Forte® - GC Corp) and a Giomer resin composite - GCR (Beautifil Bulk Restorative® - Shofu Inc) after 24 months. METHODS: One hundred and eighty-two (182) children aged from 4 to 8 years were selected and randomly assigned to GIC or GCR. A paediatric dentist treated them in the school setting in Cerquilho, Brazil, and the restorations were assessed after 3, 6, 12, 18 and 24 months. The primary outcome was the restoration survival, evaluated using the Kaplan-Meier and superiority Cox regression analyses. Intention to treat (ITT) was performed as a sensitivity analysis using superiority test P value and confidence interval (CI = 95%). Independent variables included gender, age, molar, jaw, cavity volume and caries experience. RESULTS: The restoration survival after 24 months was GIC = 58.1% and GCR = 49.1% (HR = 1.24; CI = 0.97-1.59). ITT analysis showed a success of GIC = 61.1% and GCR = 52.2% (RR = 1.17; CI = 0.91-1.52). The superiority hypothesis was not proved in both analyses (P > 0.05). CONCLUSION: GCR does not have superior longevity than GIC in occlusoproximal ART restorations of primary molars.

Partial caries removal increases the survival of permanent tooth: a 14-year case report.

BACKGROUND: Since cases of deep caries lesions may result in dental extraction due to any absence of endodontic services, and considering the advantages of conservative treatment, partial caries removal can be a viable alternative to the treatment of these lesions. CASE REPORT: During the clinical examination, generalised caries lesions were observed in a 6-year-old boy. In the maxillary right first permanent molar (tooth 16), without sensitivity to percussion and/or spontaneous pain, partial caries removal of deep caries was performed being careful to avoid pulpal exposure, followed by capping with calcium hydroxide cement and restoration using glass ionomer cement. FOLLOW-UP: After 14 years, the success of the treatment was observed by the tooth being symptom-free, the caries arrested and healthy on periapical radiograph examination even though the restoration had been lost. Endodontic treatment was not considered necessary and the dental survival time was increased, keeping the pulp vitality and absence of apical pathologies. Therefore, a restoration with Z350 resin composite was performed to return masticatory function to the tooth. CONCLUSION: Partial caries removal increased the dental survival time, avoiding the necessity of endodontic treatment and early dental loss.

The Hall Technique 10 years on: Questions and answers.

It is ten years since the first paper on the Hall Technique was published in the British Dental Journal and almost 20 years since the technique first came to notice. Dr Norna Hall a (now retired) general dental practitioner from the north of Scotland had, for many years, been managing carious primary molar teeth by cementing preformed metal crowns over them, with no local anaesthesia, tooth preparation or carious tissue removal. This first report, a retrospective analysis of Dr Hall's treatments, caused controversy. How could simply sealing a carious lesion, with all the associated bacteria and decayed tissues, possibly be clinically successful? Since then, growing understanding that caries is essentially a biofilm driven disease rather than an infectious disease, explains why the Hall Technique, and other 'sealing in' carious lesion techniques, are successful. The intervening ten years has seen robust evidence from several randomised control trials that are either completed or underway. These have found the Hall Technique superior to comparator treatments, with success rates (no pain or infection) of 99% (UK study) and 100% (Germany) at one year, 98% and 93% over two years (UK and Germany) and 97% over five years (UK). The Hall Technique is now regarded as one of several biological management options for carious lesions in primary molars. This paper covers commonly asked questions about the Hall Technique and speculates on what lies ahead.