Randomized Clinical Trial of Composite Restorations in Primary Teeth: Effect of Adhesive System after Three Years

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to assess the clinical performance of composite restorations placed with different adhesive systems in primary teeth. In 32 patients, 128 composite restorations were placed using a split-mouth design as follows (4 groups/patient): three-step etch-and-rinse (Group 1), two-step etch-and-rinse (Group 2), two-step self-etch (Group 3), and one-step self-etch (Group 4). The restorations were clinically evaluated at baseline and at 6, 18, and 36 months according to the FDI criteria. There was no significant difference between the adhesive systems in retention of the restorations (p > 0.05). Over time, there was a statistically significant decrease in marginal adaptation in all groups, whereas surface and marginal staining significantly increased in Groups 3 and 4 (p < 0.05). The etch-and-rinse adhesive systems resulted in better marginal adaptation than the self-etch adhesive systems (p < 0.05). It was concluded that preetching of the primary enamel might help improve the clinical performance of the self-etch adhesive systems in primary teeth.

The use of FDI criteria in clinical trials on direct dental restorations: A scoping review

“…Among the 30 studies using FDI criteria, 25 of them were prospective studies [10, 12-15, 17-30, 32-35, 37, 38] and primary teeth were involved in five of them [10,11,18,31,34]. In 26 studies, examiners were calibrated [9, 10, 12-30, 32, 33, 35, 36, 38].…”

“…The most employed criteria were: marginal adaptation (criterion 6; 29 studies, i.e. 96.7% of the studies) [9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36][37][38], staining (criterion 2; 27 studies, i.e. 90.0% of the studies) [9-18, 20-23, 25-30, 32-38], fracture of material and retention (criterion 5;…”

“…60.0% of the studies) [9, 10, 12-14, 16, 18, 20-24, 29, 32, 34-37]. The least used criteria were: radiographic examination (criterion 9; 6 studies) [10,11,18,34,35,37], patient's view (criterion 10; 7 studies) [12,20,24,[34][35][36][37] and oral and general health (criteria 16, 9 studies) [10,12,16,18,20,31,34,35,37].…”

Scoping review of trials evaluating adhesive strategies in pediatric dentistry: where do simplified strategies lie?

“…(n = 30) 24 months Modified USPHS Both intervention groups resulted in 100% retention, anatomical form and secondary caries categories Both materials demonstrated similar clinical behaviour results at 2 years. The easier placement technique of sonic fill may be of benefit in children Donmez et al [ 33 ] RCT 32 4–7 years old Mean: 5.96 1. Optibond FL (Kerr) 2.…”

“…In all of the studies a split mouth design is mentioned, except for Cavalheiro et al [ 26 ] in which there is no mention of paired restorations. Considering the interventions studied: five trials looked at different resin composites [ 27 – 29 , 31 , 32 ], two looked at different adhesive systems [ 30 , 33 ], while one researched surface pre-treatments [ 26 ]. Cavalheiro et al [ 26 ] study evaluated reducing the etching time of an etch-and-rinse contemporary adhesive [ 26 ].…”