Evaluation of Biodentine in the Restoration of Root Caries

Abstract

There is no "gold-standard" material for the operative management of root caries. The aim of this study was to determine if the clinical performance of Biodentine would be acceptable for the restoration of root caries in older adults. A randomized controlled clinical trial was conducted comparing a calcium silicate cement (Biodentine), a high-viscosity glass ionomer cement (Fuji IX GP Extra), and a resin-modified glass ionomer cement (Fuji II LC). Of the 334 volunteers assessed for eligibility, 249 were excluded. A total of 303 lesions in 85 participants were randomized, with 151 lesions allocated to receive Biodentine, 77 to Fuji IX GP Extra, and 77 to Fuji II LC. Patients were reviewed by a calibrated dentist who was not involved in restoration placement and who was blinded to material allocation. Restorations were assessed according to a modified US Public Health Service criteria. The cumulative survival percentages after 6 mo and 1 y were 58.6% and 47.2% in the Biodentine group, 89.6% and 83.8% in the Fuji IX GP Extra group, and 89.5% and 84.9% in the Fuji II LC group, respectively. There were statistically significant differences (c 2 test, P < 0.001) in restoration failure rates between restoration groups. There was no difference between Fuji IX GP Extra and Fuji II LC, but differences (P < 0.001) were shown between the Fuji II GP Extra group and the Biodentine group and also between the Fuji II LC group and the Biodentine group at both time points. Based on the results of this study, Biodentine cannot be recommended for the operative management of root caries. Fuji IX GP Extra and Fuji II LC displayed similar success rates, and highviscosity glass ionomer cement and resin-modified glass ionomer cement continue to be the best available option for the restoration of root caries (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01866059). Knowledge Transfer Statement: The results of this study can assist dental practitioners when selecting a restorative material for the operative management of root caries. This randomized controlled trial compared the 1-y clinical performance of a calcium silicate-based material to that of a high-viscosity glass ionomer cement and a resin-modified glass ionomer cement in the operative management of root caries. The study concluded that high-viscosity glass ionomer cement and resin-modified glass ionomer cement continue to be the best available option to dental practitioners when restoring the root surface.

Risk indicators associated with root caries in independently living older adults

“…The study was conducted in compliance with the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki and written informed consent was obtained from each participant. Eighty-five of the individuals whose data are included in this report were also subsequently enrolled in a randomised controlled clinical trial comparing restorative materials in the operative treatment of root caries [10].…”

Evaluation of the Cariogram for root caries prediction

“…Written informed consent was obtained from each participant. Eighty-five of the individuals whose data are included in this report were also enrolled in a randomised controlled clinical trial comparing restorative materials in the operative treatment of root caries [9].…”

The burden of root caries: Updated perspectives and advances on management strategies

“…The survival rate after one year was 47.2%, which was significantly lower compared with glass ionomer cement and RMGI. 112 Table 2 It is vital to note that most of the studies did not perform a proper isolation technique (the use of rubber dam), which may explain the high failure rate documented in these studies. Moreover, the cervical location of these lesions is challenging and requires excellent clinical experience and a very well-planned procedure to assure better clinical service.…”

“…The use of calcium silicate cement (Biodentine) was attempted as a final restoration for root caries. The survival rate after one year was 47.2%, which was significantly lower compared with glass ionomer cement and RMGI 112 . Table 2 shows all the clinical studies conducted to evaluate the clinical performance of different restorations at root surfaces.…”