Literature DB >> 22788726

Minimal invasive treatment for defective restorations: five-year results using sealants.

J Martin1, E Fernandez, J Estay, V V Gordan, I A Mjor, G Moncada.   

Abstract

Replacement of dental restorations has been the traditional treatment for restorations that are defective. In this five-year randomized clinical trial, restorations with localized marginal defects were treated with sealants. Thirty-two patients (mean age, 26.8 years) with 126 Class I and Class II restorations with defective margins (amalgam n=69 and resin-based composite n=57) were recruited. Treatment was seal with pit and fissure sealant on localized marginal defects (group A: n=43) and was compared with total restoration replacement (group B: n=40) and untreated restorations (group C: n=43) as negative and positive controls. Restorations were assessed by two examiners using the modified US Public Health Service criteria, observing five clinical parameters: marginal adaptation, roughness, marginal stain, teeth sensitivity, and secondary caries at baseline and at five years after treatment. At the five-year recall examination, 23 patients with 90 restorations (71.4% recall rate) were examined. A significant improvement was observed in the marginal adaptation of the restorations in group A compared with group B. None of the treated group showed trends to downgrade in any parameter. Tooth sensitivity and secondary caries showed a low frequency in all groups. No significant difference in marginal adaptation of the restorations was found between amalgam and resin-based composite restorations (p=0.191). This study demonstrated that marginal sealing of restorations is a minimally invasive treatment that may be used instead of the replacement of restorations with localized marginal defects.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22788726     DOI: 10.2341/12-062C

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Oper Dent        ISSN: 0361-7734            Impact factor:   2.440


  5 in total

1.  Is composite repair suitable for anterior restorations? A long-term practice-based clinical study.

Authors:  Françoise H van de Sande; Rafael R Moraes; Raquel V Elias; Anelise F Montagner; Paulo A Rodolpho; Flávio F Demarco; Maximiliano S Cenci
Journal:  Clin Oral Investig       Date:  2018-10-27       Impact factor: 3.573

2.  Repair Bond Strength of Aged Resin Composite after Different Surface and Bonding Treatments.

Authors:  Michael Wendler; Renan Belli; Reinhard Panzer; Daniel Skibbe; Anselm Petschelt; Ulrich Lohbauer
Journal:  Materials (Basel)       Date:  2016-07-07       Impact factor: 3.623

3.  Silane Effect of Universal Adhesive on the Composite-Composite Repair Bond Strength after Different Surface Pretreatments.

Authors:  Gioia Michelotti; Maria Niedzwiecki; Darius Bidjan; Phoebe Dieckmann; Shengjile Deari; Thomas Attin; Tobias T Tauböck
Journal:  Polymers (Basel)       Date:  2020-04-19       Impact factor: 4.329

Review 4.  Replacement versus repair of defective restorations in adults: resin composite.

Authors:  Mohammad O Sharif; Melanie Catleugh; Alison Merry; Martin Tickle; Stephen M Dunne; Paul Brunton; Vishal R Aggarwal; Lee Yee Chong
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2014-02-08

Review 5.  Replacement versus repair of defective restorations in adults: amalgam.

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
  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.