Given that most clinical parameters investigated were similar between all groups during the follow-up, the repair of RC and AM restorations is a good clinical option because it is minimally invasive and can consistently increase the longevity of restorations.

SUMMARY 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.

Artículo de publicación ISIThe aim of this prospective, blind, and randomized clinical trial was to assess the effectiveness of repair of localized clinical defects in amalgam restorations that were initially scheduled for replacement. A cohort of 20 patients with 40 (Class I and Class II) amalgam restorations that presented one or more clinical features that deviated from the ideal (Bravo or Charlie) according to US Public Health Service criteria, were randomly assigned to either the repair or the replacement group—A: repair, n = 19; and B: replacement, n = 21. Two examiners who had calibration expertise evaluated the restorations at baseline and 10 years after according to seven parameters: marginal occlusal adaptation, anatomic form, surface roughness, marginal staining, contact, secondary caries, and luster. After 10 years, 30 restorations (75%) were evaluated (Group A: n = 17; Group B: n = 13). Repaired and replaced amalgam restorations showed similar survival outcomes regarding marginal defects and secondary caries in patients with low and medium caries risk, and most of the restorations were considered clinically acceptable after 10 years. Repair treatment increased the potential for tooth longevity, using a minimally interventional procedure. All restorations trend to downgrade over time

Objectives: Effectively addressing regulatory and human participant protection issues with Institutional Review Boards (IRBs, or ethics committees) and grants administration entities is an important component of conducting research in large collaborative networks. A dental practice-based research network called "DPBRN" (http://www.DPBRN.org) comprises dentists in two health maintenance organizations, several universities, seven US states, and three Scandinavian countries. Our objectives are to describe: a) the various human participants and regulatory requirements and solutions for each of DPBRN's five regions; b) their impact on study protocols and implementation; and c) lessons learned from this process. Methods: Following numerous discussions with IRB and grants administrative personnel for each region, some practitioner-investigators are attached to their respective IRBs and contracting entities via sub-contracts between their organizations and the network's administrative site. Others are attached via Individual Investigator Agreements and contractually obligated via Memoranda of Agreement. Results: IRBs approve general operations under one approval, but specific research projects via separate approvals. Various formal IRB and grants administrative agreements have been arranged to customize research to the network context. In some instances, this occurred after feedback from patients and practitioners that lengthy written consent forms impeded research and raised suspicion, instead of decreasing it. Conclusions: Instead of viewing IRBs and institutional administrators as potentially adversarial, customized solutions can be identified by engaging them in collegial discussions that identify common ground within regulatory bounds. Although timeintensive and complex, these solutions improve acceptability of practice-based research to patients, practitioners, and university researchers.

Higher levels of ureolytic (statistically significant) and arginolytic activity (trend) in saliva were associated with lower DMFT/dmft scores in 8 year old children. There was a higher production of ammonia from the arginine deiminase system than the urease enzyme in saliva (p>0.05).