Resin-based sealing vs resin-modified glass-ionomer filling for treatment of occlusal cavitated dentine caries lesions in primary molars - a multi-center randomized controlled split-mouth 3-year follow-up clinical trial.

purposeTo evaluate if covering occlusal cavitated dentine caries lesions with limited extension (no more than one third of the bucco-lingual or disto-mesial width of the occlusal surface) in primary molars with resin-based sealing (RBS)-without previous removal of caries-would result in a lower 3-year rate of success than if all caries was removed and the cavity was filled with a resin-modified glass-ionomer cement (RMGIC), and to assess if the experience of the two treatments differed according to evaluation performed by the children and the dentists.

methodsRBS and RMGIC treatments of occlusal cavitated dentine caries lesions with limited extension in primary molars were evaluated as "defective" or "defect-free" after 3, 6, 12, 24, and 36 months in a split-mouth-study of 66 children (30girls, 36 boys) aged 4.77 ± 1.27 years. The children ranked their own experience (C-Face) for each treatment on a 7-grade face-scale, and the dentists evaluated the child's experience (D-C-exp), cooperation (D-coop) on a four-grade scale as either 'very bad', 'quite bad', 'quite good', or 'very good'.

resultsAfter three years 71.2% of RBS and 84.8% of RMGIC were defect-free (p = 0.093). D-C-exp was better for RBS (1.27 ± 0.51) than for RMGIC (1.53 ± 0.81) (p = 0.005), while no significant difference regarding C-Face or D-Coop was found between the two methods.

conclusionRBS method for treatment of occlusal cavitated dentine caries lesions with limited extension (no more than one third of the bucco-lingual or disto-mesial width of the occlusal surface) in primary molars did not have a significantly lower rate of success, and was preferred by the patients, as compared to the conventional RMGIC method, according to the dentists' evaluation of patient experience. CLINICALTRIALS: gov Identifier: NCT05475145.