Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Randomized Controlled Trial
. 2021 Jul 23;21(1):371.
doi: 10.1186/s12903-021-01710-0.

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

Rodolfo de Carvalho Oliveira  1 , Lucila Basto Camargo  2 , Tatiane Fernandes Novaes  3 , Laura Regina Antunes Pontes  1 , Isabel Cristina Olegário  4 , Thais Gimenez  5 , Ana Laura Pássaro  1 , Tamara Kerber Tedesco  5 , Mariana Minatel Braga  1 , Fausto Medeiros Mendes  1 , Daniela Prócida Raggio  6   7
Affiliations
Randomized Controlled Trial

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

Rodolfo de Carvalho Oliveira et al. BMC Oral Health. .

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 (NCT02274142).

Keywords: Dental restoration; Glass ionomer cement; Randomized Clinical Trials.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that they do not have competing interests.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
CONSORT flowchart of the participants’ progress through the trial phases
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Kaplan–Meier survival estimates after 24 months follow-up
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Buerkle V, Kuehnisch J, Guelmann M, Hickel R. Restoration materials for primary molars—results from a European survey. J Dent. 2005;33(4):275–281. doi: 10.1016/j.jdent.2004.08.009. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Šalinović I, Stunja M, Schauperl Z, Verzak Ž, Malčić AI, Rajić VB. Mechanical properties of high viscosity glass ionomer and glass hybrid restorative materials. Acta Stomatol Croat. 2019;53(2):125–131. doi: 10.15644/asc53/2/4. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Dhar V, Hsu KL, Coll JA, et al. Evidence-based update of pediatric dental restorative procedures: dental materials. J Clin Pediatr Dent. 2015;39(4):303–310. doi: 10.17796/1053-4628-39.4.303. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Pinto-Sinai G, Brewster J, Roberts H. Linear coefficient of thermal expansion evaluation of glass ionomer and resin-modified glass ionomer restorative materials. Oper Dent. 2018;43(5):266–272. doi: 10.2341/17-381-L. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Ladewig NM, Sahiara CS, Yoshioka L, et al. Efficacy of conventional treatment with composite resin and atraumatic restorative treatment in posterior primary teeth: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial. BMJ Open. 2017;7(7):1–6. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2016-015542. - DOI - PMC - PubMed

Publication types

Substances

Associated data