Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34916637›Full record

ArticleEvidence-based dentistry2021

Are RMGIC restorations as effective with or without selective caries removal in primary molars?

Rebecca Gibbison, Rebecca Crozier

Erratum issuedAbstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Rebecca GibbisonDental Core Trainee, School of Dental Sciences, Faculty of Medical Sciences, Newcastle University and Newcastle upon Tyne Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.
Rebecca CrozierTrust Grade Dental Practitioner, School of Dental Sciences, Faculty of Medical Sciences, Newcastle University and Newcastle upon Tyne Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Dental CariesGlass Ionomer CementsChildChild, PreschoolDental Caries SusceptibilityDental Restoration, PermanentHumansMolarRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicReproducibility of ResultsReview Literature as TopicTooth, DeciduousGlass Ionomer Cements

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.