Microhardness of dentine underlying ART restorations in primary molars: an in vivo pilot study

Santiago, Bianca Marques; VENTIN, Danielle; Primo, Laura Guimarães; Barcelos, Roberta

doi:10.1038/sj.bdj.4812525

Cited by 19 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 11 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…This implies, however, that not all cultivable microorganisms are always removed [Smales et al, 1998;Nadanovsky et al, 2001;Santiago et al, 2005]. Whether the residual infected dentine will cause the caries process to progress further is equivocal.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Antibacterial Effect of Chlorhexidine- Containing Glass Ionomer Cement in vivo: A Pilot Study

Frencken¹,

Imazato

Toi

et al. 2007

Caries Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This in vivo pilot study was carried out to test the antibacterial effect of glass ionomer containing chlorhexidine (test group) in comparison to conventional glass ionomer (control group). Fifty 6- to 11-year-old children with one occlusal lesion in a molar were randomly allocated to test and control groups in a parallel-group design. The cavity walls and one half of the floor were cleaned and restored with one of the materials without dentine conditioning. The restorations were removed after 7 days. Dentine samples were taken from the cleaned (affected dentine) and noncleaned area (infected dentine) at baseline and at day 7. Samples were anaerobically and aerobically cultivated for mutans streptococci, lactobacilli and total viable bacterial count (TVC) following common laboratory procedures. ANCOVA was used to test for treatment effects. Seven days after treatment, a significant decrease in anaerobic and aerobic bacterial counts (p = 0.0001) was shown. Lower numbers of anaerobic lactobacilli (p = 0.02), TVC (p = 0.008) and aerobic lactobacilli and TVC (p = 0.03), but not of mutans streptococci, were indicated in the test group compared to the control group. A significant reduction in aerobic lactobacilli from infected dentine treated with the glass ionomer containing chlorhexidine (p = 0.05) was observed whereas in affected dentine, anaerobic mutans streptococci, lactobacilli and TVC and aerobic TVC and mutans streptococci were significantly lower in the test group 7 days after treatment (p = 0.01). We conclude that the present pilot study revealed lower microorganism counts in chlorhexidine-containing glass ionomers than in conventional glass ionomers for both affected and infected dentine over a 7-day period.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Antibacterial Effect of Chlorhexidine- Containing Glass Ionomer Cement in vivo: A Pilot Study

Frencken¹,

Imazato

Toi

et al. 2007

Caries Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Clinical trials with long-term follow-up periods have demonstrated that cavity sealing is an extremely important factor for the success of this technique, regardless of the material used for protection and induction of the remaining carious dentin [Falster et al, 2002;Marchi et al, 2006;Pinto et al, 2006;Franzon et al, 2007]. Moreover clinical, microbiological, radiographic and laboratory analyses have shown that carious dentin remaining beneath the restoration is inactive, as evidenced by increased clinical and laboratory hardness, decreased moisture, staining consistent with a non-progressive lesion, considerably reduced bacterial infection and increased radiographic density [Ribeiro et al, 1999;Bjorndal and Larsen, 2000;Santiago et al, 2005;Marchi et al, 2008;Orhan et al, 2008;Franzon et al, 2009;Lula et al, 2009;Alves et al, 2010;Bjorndal et al, 2010;Lula et al, 2011;Maltz et al, 2011Maltz et al, , 2012. The examination of primary teeth allows researchers to monitor the effects of this treatment until natural exfoliation, and several groups have concluded that PCR may be a definitive treatment for primary dentition [Marchi et al, 2008;Casagrande et al, 2009;Franzon et al, 2009].…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Outcomes of One-Step Incomplete and Complete Excavation in Primary Teeth: A 24-Month Randomized Controlled Trial

Franzon¹,

Guimarães²,

Magalhães³

et al. 2014

Caries Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aim: To compare 24-month pulp health outcomes of partial caries removal (PCR) and total caries removal (TCR) with composite restoration in primary molars. Methods: 48 children aged 3-8 years with at least one molar with a deep carious lesion were included. 120 teeth were randomized to control (TCR; n = 54; 69% class II) and test (PCR; n = 66; 63% class II) groups. Total absence of carious tissue was confirmed using a blunt-tipped probe in the TCR group. For PCR, excavation was stopped when hardened, dried dentin with a leathery consistency was achieved. Pulpotomy was performed in cases of pulp exposure. Results: Pulp exposure occurred in 2 and 27.5% of teeth treated with PCR and TCR, respectively (p < 0.01). The operative time was significantly higher for TCR than PCR. Success rates were 92 and 96% in the PCR and TCR groups, respectively (p = 0.34). The success rate tended to be lower in occlusoproximal (92%) than in occlusal (100%) lesions (p = 0.08). Conclusion: The clinical and radiographic success rates of PCR and TCR in primary teeth with deep carious lesions were high and did not differ significantly, indicating that PCR is a reliable minimally invasive approach in primary teeth and that the retention of carious dentin does not interfere with pulp vitality. Moreover, PCR provided other clinically relevant advantages over TCR, especially lower incidence of pulp exposure and lower operative time.

show abstract

“…Therefore, attending sufficiently long training sessions is essential to produce successful ART sealants and ART restorations 9,15,28 . Anecdotal information has considered partial excavation of infected dentine being part of the ART approach 25 . Similarly, indirect pulp capping has been ascribed as an ART procedure 11 .…”

Section: The Atraumatic Restorative Treatment (Art)mentioning

confidence: 99%

The correct use of the ART approach

Frencken

Leal

2010

J. Appl. Oral Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Confusion exists amongst dentists and scientists about the correct use of the caries management approach termed atraumatic restorative treatment (ART). Inconsistent use of the original definition of ART and suggested modifications (mART) have led to misunderstanding, misconception and miscommunication in the dental literature over the last decade. The aim of this paper is to contribute to a uniform understanding and use of the term ART. Adherence to its original description is suggested and two major aspects were addressed: the use of hand instruments only and the use of adhesive materials and systems.

show abstract

Microhardness of dentine underlying ART restorations in primary molars: an in vivo pilot study

Cited by 19 publications

References 11 publications

Antibacterial Effect of Chlorhexidine- Containing Glass Ionomer Cement in vivo: A Pilot Study

Antibacterial Effect of Chlorhexidine- Containing Glass Ionomer Cement in vivo: A Pilot Study

Outcomes of One-Step Incomplete and Complete Excavation in Primary Teeth: A 24-Month Randomized Controlled Trial

The correct use of the ART approach

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About