OBJECTIVE: Placing a Class II restoration in a tooth changes the local environment, including that for the adjacent tooth. Apart from the change to a less- or non-cariogenic environment for the restored tooth, the effect of leachable components from a restoration in the adjacent tooth should be taken into consideration. METHOD: Practice-based clinical studies comprising of 1341 unrestored proximal surfaces in contact with Class II restorations using different restorative materials were reviewed to assess the effect on the caries development on the adjacent teeth. The caries status of the adjacent un-restored proximal surface was assessed as being clinically sound, having active caries with or without cavitation, or having arrested caries. Restorations from nine clinicians were reviewed. They had attended annual meetings where all aspects of the investigation had been discussed. The surfaces were followed for up to eight years. RESULTS: A reduced rate of caries development and progression were found on surfaces in contact with fluoride releasing materials like glass ionomers, resin modified glass ionomers and compomers compared to surfaces in contact with amalgam. CONCLUSION:Fluoride releasing materials reduce the development and progression of primary caries on adjacent proximal surfaces.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: Placing a Class II restoration in a tooth changes the local environment, including that for the adjacent tooth. Apart from the change to a less- or non-cariogenic environment for the restored tooth, the effect of leachable components from a restoration in the adjacent tooth should be taken into consideration. METHOD: Practice-based clinical studies comprising of 1341 unrestored proximal surfaces in contact with Class II restorations using different restorative materials were reviewed to assess the effect on the caries development on the adjacent teeth. The caries status of the adjacent un-restored proximal surface was assessed as being clinically sound, having active caries with or without cavitation, or having arrested caries. Restorations from nine clinicians were reviewed. They had attended annual meetings where all aspects of the investigation had been discussed. The surfaces were followed for up to eight years. RESULTS: A reduced rate of caries development and progression were found on surfaces in contact with fluoride releasing materials like glass ionomers, resin modified glass ionomers and compomers compared to surfaces in contact with amalgam. CONCLUSION:Fluoride releasing materials reduce the development and progression of primary caries on adjacent proximal surfaces.