Plain language summary for “Direct materials for restoring caries lesions: systematic review and meta-analysis—a report of the American Dental Association Council on Scientific Affairs”

Pilcher, Lauren; Pahlke, S; Urquhart, Olivia; O’Brien, Kelly K.; Carrasco‐Labra, Alonso

doi:10.1016/j.adaj.2022.10.007

Cited by 6 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Several studies 27,28,29 found that women prefer composite restorations, whereas men preferred amalgam restorations. They also noted a preference for composite restorations which are generally more expensive in areas with higher socioeconomic status, while amongst those of a lower socioeconomic status, amalgam (which is generally less expensive) was preferred.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Survival of Amalgam and Composite Resin Restorations From Big Data Real-Life Databases in the Era of Restricted Dental Mercury Use

Tobias,

Chackartchi,

Mann

et al. 2024

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Tooth decay, also known as caries, is a significant medical problem that harms teeth. Treatment is based on the removal of the carious material and then filling the cavity left in the tooth, most commonly with amalgam or composite resin. The consequences of filling failure include repeating the filling, or performing another treatment, such as a root canal, or extraction. Dental amalgam contains mercury, and there is a global effort to reduce its use. However, no consensus has been reached using randomized clinical trials, regarding whether amalgam or composite resin materials are more durable, and which is the best restorative material. To determine which material is superior, we performed a retrospective cohort study using a large database where members of the 58 dental clinics with 440 dental units were treated. The number of failures of the amalgam compared to composite resin restorations between 2014 and 2021 were compared. Our data included information from over 650,000 patients. Between 2014 - 2021, 260,905 patients were treated. 19,692 out of 113,281 first amalgam restorations failed (17.49%), whereas significantly fewer composite restorations failed (11.98%) 65,943 out of 555,671. This study indicates that composite is superior to amalgam and therefore it is reasonable to cease using mercury containing amalgam.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Survival of Amalgam and Composite Resin Restorations From Big Data Real-Life Databases in the Era of Restricted Dental Mercury Use

Tobias,

Chackartchi,

Mann

et al. 2024

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Several studies [ 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 ] have found that women prefer composite restorations, whereas men prefer amalgam restorations. They have also noted a preference for composite restorations, which are generally more expensive in areas with higher socioeconomic status, while amalgam (which is generally less expensive) is preferred amongst those of a lower socioeconomic status.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Survival Rates of Amalgam and Composite Resin Restorations from Big Data Real-Life Databases in the Era of Restricted Dental Mercury Use

Tobias,

Chackartchi,

Mann

et al. 2024

Bioengineering

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Tooth decay, also known as caries, is a significant medical problem that harms teeth. Treatment is based on the removal of the carious material and then filling the cavity left in the tooth, most commonly with amalgam or composite resin. The consequences of filling failure include repeating the filling or performing another treatment such as a root canal or extraction. Dental amalgam contains mercury, and there is a global effort to reduce its use. However, no consensus has been reached regarding whether amalgam or composite resin materials are more durable, and which is the best restorative material, when using randomized clinical trials. To determine which material is superior, we performed a retrospective cohort study using a large database where the members of 58 dental clinics with 440 dental units were treated. The number of failures of the amalgam compared to composite resin restorations between 2014 and 2021 were compared. Our data included information from over 650,000 patients. Between 2014–2021, 260,905 patients were treated. In total, 19,692 out of the first 113,281 amalgam restorations failed (17.49%), whereas significantly fewer composite restorations failed (11.98%) with 65,943 out of 555,671. This study indicates that composite is superior to amalgam and therefore it is reasonable to cease using mercury-containing amalgam.

show abstract

“…Glass ionomers cements (GIC) are also popular in paediatric dentistry for their simple application, fluoride release, and less moisture sensitivity [ 21 ]. On the other hand, they might have inferior mechanical properties, worse marginal adaptation, and a higher risk of restoration failure compared to RBC [ 22 ].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Two-year clinical and radiographic evaluation of ACTIVA BioACTIVE versus Compomer (Dyract® eXtra) in the restoration of class-2 cavities of primary molars: a non-inferior split-mouth randomised clinical trial

Banon,

Vandenbulcke,

Van Acker

et al. 2024

BMC Oral Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives The trial aimed to compare the clinical performance and radiographic success of ACTIVA BioACTIVE versus Compomer in restoring class-II cavities of primary molars. Materials and methods A non-inferior split-mouth design was considered. A pre-calculated sample size of 96 molars (48 per group) with class-2 cavities of twenty-one children whose ages ranged from 5 to 10 years were randomly included in the trial. Pre-operative Plaque Index (PI), DMFT/dmft scores and the time required to fill the cavity were recorded. Over 24 months, the teeth were clinically evaluated every six months and radiographically every 12 months by two calibrated and blinded evaluators using the United States public health service (USPHS)-Ryge criteria. The two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference in success rate was considered to assess non-inferiority, and the margin was set at -18%. The linear mixed model and Firth’s logistic regression model were used for data analysis (P < 0.05). Results After 24 months, 86 teeth (43 per group) were evaluated. The mean PI score was 1.1(± 0.9), while DMFT/dmft was 0.35 (± 0.74) and 6.55 (± 2.25) respectively. The clinical and radiographic success rate of Dyract vs. ACTIVA was 95.3% and 88.3% vs. 93% and 86%, respectively. The two-sided 95% CI for the difference in success rate (-2.3%) was − 3.2 to 1.3% and didn’t reach the predetermined margin of -18% which had been anticipated as the non-inferiority margin. Clinically, ACTIVA had a significantly better colour match (P = 0.002) but worse marginal discolouration (P = 0.0143). There were no significant differences regarding other clinical or radiographic criteria (P > 0.05). ACTIVA took significantly less placement time than Dyract, with a mean difference of 2.37 (± 0.63) minutes (P < 0.001). Conclusion The performance of ACTIVA was not inferior to Dyract and both materials had a comparable high clinical and radiographic performance in children with high-caries experience. ACTIVA had a significantly better colour match but more marginal discolouration. It took significantly less time to be placed in the oral cavity. Trial registration The study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov on 4 May 2018 (#NCT03516838).

show abstract

Plain language summary for “Direct materials for restoring caries lesions: systematic review and meta-analysis—a report of the American Dental Association Council on Scientific Affairs”

Cited by 6 publications

References 0 publications

Survival of Amalgam and Composite Resin Restorations From Big Data Real-Life Databases in the Era of Restricted Dental Mercury Use

Survival of Amalgam and Composite Resin Restorations From Big Data Real-Life Databases in the Era of Restricted Dental Mercury Use

Survival Rates of Amalgam and Composite Resin Restorations from Big Data Real-Life Databases in the Era of Restricted Dental Mercury Use

Two-year clinical and radiographic evaluation of ACTIVA BioACTIVE versus Compomer (Dyract® eXtra) in the restoration of class-2 cavities of primary molars: a non-inferior split-mouth randomised clinical trial

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About