OBJECTIVE: To investigate the effectiveness of alternative treatments for replacing defective amalgam restorations through a prospective longitudinal cohort clinical study. METHODS:Forty-five patients aged 21 through 77 (mean=56) years with 113 defective amalgam restorations, which were independently diagnosed during treatment planning, participated in the study. These patients were assigned to 5 treatment groups: repair (n=20), sealing of defective margins (n=23), refurbishing (n=23), replacement (n=23) and no-treatment (n=24). The replacement and no-treatment groups served as comparison groups and received random assignment. Two clinicians examined the restorations (n=113) prior to and after the assigned treatment and at subsequent recalls, using a modified Ryge Criteria that included marginal adaptation, anatomy, contact, post-operative sensitivity and secondary caries. RESULTS: At 1- and 2-year recalls, 79 (70%) and 74 (65%) restorations were examined. Kruskal-Wallis Test showed significant differences for marginal adaptation and anatomic form for both 1- and 2- year recall exams (p<.05). The repair and replacement groups had significant differences when compared to the no-treatment group. CONCLUSIONS: Defective restorations that have a Bravo rating for clinical characteristics other than marginal integrity and anatomical form do not need to be immediately replaced.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: To investigate the effectiveness of alternative treatments for replacing defective amalgam restorations through a prospective longitudinal cohort clinical study. METHODS: Forty-five patients aged 21 through 77 (mean=56) years with 113 defective amalgam restorations, which were independently diagnosed during treatment planning, participated in the study. These patients were assigned to 5 treatment groups: repair (n=20), sealing of defective margins (n=23), refurbishing (n=23), replacement (n=23) and no-treatment (n=24). The replacement and no-treatment groups served as comparison groups and received random assignment. Two clinicians examined the restorations (n=113) prior to and after the assigned treatment and at subsequent recalls, using a modified Ryge Criteria that included marginal adaptation, anatomy, contact, post-operative sensitivity and secondary caries. RESULTS: At 1- and 2-year recalls, 79 (70%) and 74 (65%) restorations were examined. Kruskal-Wallis Test showed significant differences for marginal adaptation and anatomic form for both 1- and 2- year recall exams (p<.05). The repair and replacement groups had significant differences when compared to the no-treatment group. CONCLUSIONS: Defective restorations that have a Bravo rating for clinical characteristics other than marginal integrity and anatomical form do not need to be immediately replaced.
Authors: R Hickel; J-F Roulet; S Bayne; S D Heintze; I A Mjör; M Peters; V Rousson; R Randall; G Schmalz; M Tyas; G Vanherle Journal: Clin Oral Investig Date: 2007-01-30 Impact factor: 3.573
Authors: Valeria V Gordan; Joseph L Riley; Saulo Geraldeli; D Brad Rindal; Vibeke Qvist; Jeffrey L Fellows; H Paul Kellum; Gregg H Gilbert Journal: J Am Dent Assoc Date: 2012-06 Impact factor: 3.634
Authors: Mohammad O Sharif; Alison Merry; Melanie Catleugh; Martin Tickle; Paul Brunton; Stephen M Dunne; Vishal R Aggarwal; Lee Yee Chong Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2014-02-08