An RCT of atraumatic restorative treatment for older adults: 5 year results.

OBJECTIVES: to compare the survival of ART and a conventional restorative technique (CT) for restoring carious lesions in older adults after 5 years. METHODS: In this parallel randomised controlled clinical trial, 219 independently-living adults were recruited from a dental hospital/community and a geriatric day hospital. Ninety-nine patients who met the inclusion criteria and presented with carious lesions were randomly allocated to receive either ART or conventional restorations (anaesthesia, rotary instruments and resin-modified glass ionomer). The status of restorations was assessed 6 months, 1, 2 and 5 years after restoration placement. Estimates of cumulative survival were calculated for each interval between assessments and a Cox Proportional Hazards (PH) model was fitted to the interval-censored survival time. RESULTS: Three hundred restorations (ART n=142; CT n=158) were placed on 99 patients, 46 males and 53 females, with a mean age of 73.2, SD: 6.8 (65-90 yrs). After 5 years, ART and CT presented cumulative probability of survival of 85% and 79% (p=0.8095), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: ART presents survival rates comparable to a conventional technique, when treating older adults after 5 years. The ART approach could be a useful tool to provide dental care for older adults particularly in the nonclinical setting. (Trial Registration number: ISRCTN 76299321). CLINICAL RELEVANCE: This study shows that ART presents survival rates comparable to conventional techniques to treat carious lesions in older patients after 5 years. It is well accepted by this age cohort, and therefore could be an alternative to treat the elderly, especially those who are homebound or cannot attend the dentist.

Evaluation of the Cariogram for root caries prediction.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to evaluate complete and reduced Cariogram models in predicting root caries risk in independently living older adults by comparing the caries risk assessment of the programme to observed root caries increment over a two-year period. METHODS: A prospective study recording root caries incidence was conducted on 334 dentate older adults. Data were collected on participant's medical history, fluoride exposure, and diet. Saliva samples were collected to measure salivary flow rate, buffer capacity and bacterial counts. Clinical examination was completed to record decayed, missing and filled teeth (DMFT) and also exposed, filled and decayed root surfaces (RDFS). This was repeated after 12 and 24 months. Scores were entered into the Cariogram and baseline risk category was recorded. Reduced Cariogram models were generated by omitting individual salivary variables and all salivary variables. The performance of the complete and reduced Cariogram models in predicting root caries incidence were evaluated by receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis. RESULTS: 280 participants were examined at two year follow up. 55.6% of those in the highest risk group developed new caries compared to 3.8% in the lowest risk group. The mean root caries increment in the highest risk group was 2.00 (SD 3.20) compared to 0.04 (SD 0.20) in the lowest risk group. The area under the ROC curve for the complete Cariogram model was 0.77 (95% CI 0.70-0.83) indicating a fair performance in predicting root caries. Omitting individual or all salivary variables did not significantly alter the predictive ability of the Cariogram. CONCLUSION: Within the limitations of this study, the Cariogram was clinically useful in identifying individuals with a high risk of developing root caries. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Identification of a caries risk assessment tool which could reliably select high-risk individuals for root caries prevention strategies would maximise the cost effectiveness of professionally delivered prevention measures.

Evaluation of Biodentine in the Restoration of Root Caries: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

There is no "gold-standard" material for the operative management of root caries. The aim of this study was to determine if the clinical performance of Biodentine would be acceptable for the restoration of root caries in older adults. A randomized controlled clinical trial was conducted comparing a calcium silicate cement (Biodentine), a high-viscosity glass ionomer cement (Fuji IX GP Extra), and a resin-modified glass ionomer cement (Fuji II LC). Of the 334 volunteers assessed for eligibility, 249 were excluded. A total of 303 lesions in 85 participants were randomized, with 151 lesions allocated to receive Biodentine, 77 to Fuji IX GP Extra, and 77 to Fuji II LC. Patients were reviewed by a calibrated dentist who was not involved in restoration placement and who was blinded to material allocation. Restorations were assessed according to a modified US Public Health Service criteria. The cumulative survival percentages after 6 mo and 1 y were 58.6% and 47.2% in the Biodentine group, 89.6% and 83.8% in the Fuji IX GP Extra group, and 89.5% and 84.9% in the Fuji II LC group, respectively. There were statistically significant differences ( χ2 test, P < 0.001) in restoration failure rates between restoration groups. There was no difference between Fuji IX GP Extra and Fuji II LC, but differences ( P < 0.001) were shown between the Fuji II GP Extra group and the Biodentine group and also between the Fuji II LC group and the Biodentine group at both time points. Based on the results of this study, Biodentine cannot be recommended for the operative management of root caries. Fuji IX GP Extra and Fuji II LC displayed similar success rates, and high-viscosity glass ionomer cement and resin-modified glass ionomer cement continue to be the best available option for the restoration of root caries ( ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01866059). Knowledge Transfer Statement: The results of this study can assist dental practitioners when selecting a restorative material for the operative management of root caries. This randomized controlled trial compared the 1-y clinical performance of a calcium silicate-based material to that of a high-viscosity glass ionomer cement and a resin-modified glass ionomer cement in the operative management of root caries. The study concluded that high-viscosity glass ionomer cement and resin-modified glass ionomer cement continue to be the best available option to dental practitioners when restoring the root surface.

A study of primary teeth restored by intracoronal restorations in children participating in an undergraduate teaching programme at Cork University Dental School and Hospital, Ireland.

AIM: To study the outcomes for restored primary molar teeth; to examine outcomes in relation to tooth type involved, intracoronal restoration complexity and to the material used. DESIGN: Retrospective study of primary molar teeth restored by intracoronal restorations. A series of restored primary molar teeth for children aged 6-12 years was studied. The principal outcome measure was failure of initial restoration (re-restoration or extraction). Three hundred patient records were studied to include three equal groups of primary molar teeth restored with amalgam, composite or glass ionomer, respectively. Restorative materials, the restoration type, simple (single surface) or complex (multi-surface) restoration, and tooth notation were recorded. Subsequent interventions were examined. Data were coded and entered into a Microsoft Excel database and analysis undertaken using SPSS v.18. Statistical differences were tested using the Chi square test of statistical significance. RESULTS: Of the 300 teeth studied, 61 restoration failures were recorded with 11 of those extracted. No significant differences were found between outcomes for upper first, upper second, lower first or lower second primary molars. Outcomes for simple primary teeth restored by intracoronal restorations were significantly better than those for complex intracoronal restorations (P = 0.042). Teeth originally restored with amalgam accounted for 19.7% of the 61 failures, composite for 29.5%, while teeth restored with glass ionomer represented 50.8% of all restoration failures. The differences were significant (P = 0.012). CONCLUSIONS: The majority (79.7%) of the 300 restored primary teeth studied were successful, and 3.7% teeth were extracted. Restorations involving more than one surface had almost twice the failure rate of single surface restorations. The difference was significant. Significant differences in failure rates for the three dental materials studied were recorded. Amalgam had the lowest failure rate while the failure rate with glass ionomer was the highest.