ArticleEvidence-based dentistry2021
Are RMGIC restorations as effective with or without selective caries removal in primary molars?
Article in Evidence-based dentistry, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Design A two-arm parallel group, tooth-randomised, controlled, non-inferiority clinical trial.Case selection Participants were cooperative 3-9-year-old children of good health, presenting with at least one International Caries Detection and Assessment System (ICDAS) Grade 5 cavitated dentine occlusal carious lesion, with radiographic depth into dentine. Teeth included were symptom-free, non-mobile and had no more than one-third root resorption.Participants were treated and followed-up at The Paediatric Dental Clinic of the Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul, School of Dentistry, Porto Alegre, Brazil. Ethics approval was granted by the Research Ethics Committee of University of Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil.Data analysis In total, 93 children (n = 698 teeth) were evaluated. Clinical examination was performed by two operators, trained and calibrated for caries assessment, for lesion presence and depth. Kappa statistics were used to determine inter-examiner reliability. All participants received standardised toothbrushing instructions, dietary advice and dental prophylaxis before their intervention.Teeth were randomly allocated into one of the two intervention groups using a random number generator. The 'sealing group' had their occlusal lesions sealed with resin-modified glass ionomer cements (RMGIC), without any caries removal, according to manufacturer's instruction. The 'restoration group' had selective caries removal performed with a round, steel bur according to the clinical hardness criteria and were then restored with the same RMGIC as the 'sealing group', again according to manufacturer's instruction. The treatments were performed by two experienced paediatric dental specialists. No local anaesthetic was needed in either group.Patients were followed-up at 6, 12, 18 and 24 months after treatment for examination, prophylaxis and interproximal radiography. Any asymptomatic teeth with marginal deterioration which could be probed underwent reintervention and were maintained in the sample.Cavity volume in the 'restoration group' was statistically significantly greater (p = 0.01) than the 'sealing group'. All other baseline sample characteristics were not significantly different.Results Overall, 68 teeth were included at the start of the study; n = 31 in the 'sealing group' and n = 37 in the 'restoration group'. At one-year post-intervention, 60 teeth were examined. Overall success rate was 59.3% for the 'sealing group' and 78.8% for the 'restoration group'. At two-years post-intervention, 48 teeth were examined. Overall success rate was 48.8% in the 'sealing group' and 76.0% in the 'restoration group'. Over the follow-up period, no radiographic lesion progression was observed in either group.Conclusions Sealing ICDAS Grade 5 occlusal caries with RMGIC without any caries removal resulted in lower survival rates at two-years compared to the same material following selective caries removal.
Indexed as
Identifiers
34916637What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.