Advertisement

Residual caries and marginal integrity in relation to class II glass ionomer restorations in primary molars

  • R. J. A. MhavilleEmail author
  • W. E. van Amerongen
  • G. J. Mandari
Article

Abstract

Aim: To assess the effectiveness of three treatment methods (ART, CarisolvTM and rotary instruments) in caries removal and sealing capability of hand-mixed glass ionomer in the management of proximal caries in deciduous molars. Methods: In a clinical study 217 dentally naïve children (age 7.5, SD 0.57) were randomly divided in three treatment groups and among 4 operators. Each child received one class II glass ionomer restoration. Immediately after restoration bitewings were made. The dependent variables were: residual caries and marginal adaptation. Independent variables were operator effect, child’s behaviour and time to remove caries. Results: There was no statistical significant difference in residual caries between the three treatment methods (p> 0.05). In 33% of the cases a clear radiolucency underneath the restoration was visible on the bitewings. In 26% doubt existed on the presence of residual caries. A clear cervical gap was seen in 16% of the restorations, while in 18% signs of cervical gaps were less obvious. Between the four operators a significant difference in relation to residual caries (p=0.015) was found as well as a significant difference between the operators for the preparation time in the three treatment methods (p<0.05). The child’s behaviour seems to have no influence on residual caries and marginal gaps. Conclusion: This study indicates that there is no preparation method superior to another, though the treatment methods seem to be sensitive for operator effects. Using hand-mixed glass ionomer cement resulted in considerable number of cervical gaps found.

Key words

Residual caries marginal gap ART Carisolv glass ionomer cement radiographic assessment 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Amerongen WE van, Eggink CO. The cervical margins of amalgam restorations: a radiographic and clinical assessment. J Dent Child 1986: 53:177–183.Google Scholar
  2. Banerjee A, Kidd EAM, Watson TF. In vitro evaluation of five alternative methods of carious dentine excavation. Caries Res 2000; 34: 144–150.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Colt BO, Welbury RR. The Atraumatic restorative treatment (ART) technique; does it have a place in everyday practice. Dent Update 2000; 27(3): 118–20, 122–3 reviews.Google Scholar
  4. Dungen GM van de, Slater AEH, Amerongen WE van. ART of Conventioneel? Onderzoek resultaten van proximale resturaties in tijdlijke molaren. Ned. Tijd. Tandeelkunde 2004; 11: 345–349.Google Scholar
  5. Frencken JE, Holmgren CJ. Atraumatic restorative treatment for dental caries. 1st Ed STI Book b.v., 1999.Google Scholar
  6. Kreulen CM. A study on assessing quality aspects of class II restorations, resin composite versus amalgam. PhD thesis, Amsterdam Oct 1992.Google Scholar
  7. Lo ECM, Holmgren CJ. Provision of Atraumatic Restorative Treatment to Chinese pre-school children — a 30 month evaluation. Int J Paed Dent 2001 1; 11:3–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Mickenautsch S, Rudolph MJ, Ogunbodede EO, Frencken JE. The impact of the ART approach on the treatment profile in a Mobile Dental System (MDS) in South Africa. Int Dent J 1990; 40: 11–7.Google Scholar
  9. Munshi AK, Hegde AM, Shetty PK. Clinical evaluation of Carisolv in the chemo-mechanical removal of carious dentin. Int. J Paed Dent 2001; 26(1):49–54.Google Scholar
  10. Nielsen CJ. Effect of scenario and experience on interpretation of mach bands. J. Endod. 2001: 27(11):687–91.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Rudolphy MP, Amerongen JP van, Penning CH, Cate JM ten. Validity of bitewings for diagnosis of secondary caries in teeth with occlusal amalgam restorations in vitro. Caries Res 1993; 27: 312–316.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Ryge G. Clinical criteria. Int. Dent. J. 1980: 30: 347–358.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Schriks MC, Van Amerongen WE, Atraumatic perspectives of ART: psychological and physiological aspects of treatment with and without rotary instruments. Comm Dent Oral Epid. 2003; 31(1): 15–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Splieth C, Rosin M, Gellissen B. Determination of residual dentine caries after conventional mechanical and chemo mechanical caries removal with carisolv. Clin. Oral Invest. 2001 5: 250–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Taifour MD. Effectiveness of the ART approach in child population in Syria. PhD thesis, Nijmegen Dec, 2002.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© European Academy of Paediatric Dentistry 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • R. J. A. Mhaville
    • 1
    Email author
  • W. E. van Amerongen
    • 1
  • G. J. Mandari
    • 2
  1. 1.Cariology Endodontology PedodontologyAcademic Centre of Dentistry Amsterdam (ACTA)AmsterdamThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Department of Restorative Dentistry, Faculty of DentistryMuhimbili University College of Health Sciences (MUCHS)Dar es-SalaamTanzania

Personalised recommendations