 |
Title |
For Preventing caries Around Restorations in High caries Risk Patients, Resin Modified Glass Ionomers may be the choice |
Clinical Question |
In caries-active patients, do resin modified glass ionomer (RMGI) restorations prevent caries around restorations more effectively than non-fluoride releasing restorations over 5 years? |
Clinical Bottom Line |
(RMGI) restorations protected adjacent tooth surfaces from caries more than non-fluoride releasing restorations over five years. |
Best Evidence |
(you may view more info by clicking on the PubMed ID link) |
PubMed ID |
Author / Year |
Patient Group |
Study type
(level of evidence) |
#1) 20684440 | Qvist/2010 | 1,341 tooth surfaces from 945 children | RCT | Key results | After 5 years of restoration, 52%, 40%, 54% and 55% of healthy tooth surfaces around RMGI, amalgam, GI and compomer restorations, respectively, were protected from caries development. The rate of progression of existing carious lesions on proximal surfaces was significantly less with RMGI compared with amalgam restorations. | #2) 15471520 | Kotsanos/2004 | 82 tooth surfaces from 36 children | Split Mouth RCT | Key results | The two years protection rates of adjacent healthy tooth surfaces against caries were 49% and 59% for Resin modified glass ionomer and Amalgam restorations, respectively, though the difference was not statistically significant. RMGI placed for a class II restoration did not affect the radiographic progression of caries at adjacent tooth surfaces when compared with non-fluoride releasing amalgam or composite restoration after 2 years (p ≤ .813). | |
Evidence Search |
"Dental Caries"[Mesh] AND "Fluorides"[Mesh] AND "Dental Restoration, Permanent"[Mesh] AND resin modified glass ionomer |
Comments on
The Evidence |
Qvist 2010 was a clinical study with the results based on clinical and radiographic assessment. RMGI and GI, both of which are flouride-releasing, demonstrated protective effects on adjacent tooth structure, with GI being more protective than RMGI. GI lacks the compressive strength of RMGI leading to early failure.
Although the Kotsanos (2004) article was a clinical one, it had relatively fewer subjects, was a radiographic study only, was not double blind and was conducted over a shorter time period compared with the Qvist article. |
Applicability |
RMGI might be particularly useful for patients at high caries risk due to protective flouride-releasing effect and high compressive strength. |
Specialty/Discipline |
(General Dentistry) (Pediatric Dentistry) (Restorative Dentistry) |
Keywords |
Resin modified glass ionomer, Fluoride releasing, caries, Restorative materials
|
ID# |
2172 |
Date of submission: |
02/24/2012 |
E-mail |
glick@uthscsa.edu |
Author |
Aaron Glick |
Co-author(s) |
|
Co-author(s) e-mail |
|
Faculty mentor/Co-author |
Bennett T. Amaechi, BDS, MSc, PhD |
Faculty mentor/Co-author e-mail |
amaechi@uthscsa.edu |
Basic Science Rationale
(Mechanisms that may account for and/or explain the clinical question, i.e. is the answer to the clinical question consistent with basic biological, physical and/or behavioral science principles, laws and research?) |
post a rationale |
None available | |
 |
Comments and Evidence-Based Updates on the CAT
(FOR PRACTICING DENTISTS', FACULTY, RESIDENTS and/or STUDENTS COMMENTS ON PUBLISHED CATs) |
post a comment |
by Matthew Alonzo and Gurbani Makkar (San Antonio) on 11/28/2017 A PubMed database search was conducted on November 28, 2017 using the same search criteria from this CAT. More recent but lower level evidence was found in a narrative review by Cury et al. 2016 (PMID 26777115). The new evidence concludes there was no clinical significance that fluoride releasing materials protects adjacent tooth surfaces from caries over non- fluoride releasing restorations. | |
 |
|