 |
| Title |
Restoration Materials In Dry Mouth Patients |
| Clinical Question |
For a patient with dry mouth, which restorative material, amalgam or resin composite, has the lowest incidence of recurrent caries? |
| Clinical Bottom Line |
Glass ionomer has the lowest incidence of recurrent caries when compared to amalgam. (See Comments on the CAT below) |
| 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) 12636121 | Haveman/2003 | 111 restorations in 9 xerostomic patients | Randomized Controlled Split Mouth Study | | Key results | caries did not develop at the cavosurface margin of 85% of Ketac-Fil restorations, 88% percent of Vitremer restorations, and 56% of tytin amalgam restorations with fluoride use. Restorations with caries at the cavosurface margin developed in non-fluoride users: 36% of Ketac-Fil restorations, 27% of Vitremer restorations, and 68% of tytin restorations. Patients with the glass inonomer restorations had lower rate of caries at the cavosurface margin than did patients with amalgam restorations (P <0.05). | |
| Evidence Search |
Search caries Search recurrence, Search composite resinSearch dental amalgam, Search xerostomia |
Comments on
The Evidence |
Haveman (2003), a randomized controlled split mouth study, had similar groups at start, all exhibiting xerostomia. There was greater than 80% completion rate. Follow up was adequate (2 years). Compliance was adequate. Recall bias unlikely, and no competing interests were evident. Groups were not treated the same in that restorations were placed by three practitioners, and not all restorations were evaluated by the same clinician. This study had a very small number of subjects (n=9). |
| Applicability |
The subject of the presented article is representative of the patient population of interest, in which the success of resin restorations are compared to amalgam restorations in xerostomic patients. No potential harm to the patient. Patient benefit is the placement of the most successful restorative material. |
| Specialty/Discipline |
(General Dentistry) (Restorative Dentistry) |
| Keywords |
Dry mouth, xerostomia, amalgam, resin composite, caries
|
| ID# |
789 |
| Date of submission: |
04/14/2011 |
| E-mail |
garciam30@livemail.uthscsa.edu |
| Author |
Meagan D. Garcia |
| Co-author(s) |
|
| Co-author(s) e-mail |
|
| Faculty mentor/Co-author |
Vidya Sankar, DMD, MHS |
| Faculty mentor/Co-author e-mail |
SankarV@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 Petrina Gerogianni, Rebeka Andrade (San Antonio, TX) on 10/03/2014
A PubMed and Trip Database search conducted on September 2014 confirmed the aforementioned statement. One more recent publications was found; DeMoor RJ, 2009, PMID: 19997859 (2 year prospective Clinical Trial). The study showed that in xerostomic, head-neck irradiated cancer patients, glass-ionomer (especially the conventionally setting formulation) provided higher clinical caries inhibition. | |
|
|
