bims-amcopo 2024-06-30 papers

Issue of 2024‒06‒30
two papers selected by
Michael Logies, Dentist

Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal. 2024 Jul 01. 29(4): e559-e567

In vivo study of the behavior of glass ionomer restorations in patients with special needs.

M Grau-Benítez, F-J Silvestre, A Pascual, A Albero, J Silvestre-Rangil.

BACKGROUND: Glass ionomers may be a good alternative to composite resin restorations in special needs patients with challenging behaviours. The present study was carried out to evaluate the restorative efficacy of glass ionomer in the occlusal cavities of permanent molars among patients with special needs after one year of follow-up.MATERIAL AND METHODS: A randomized split-mouth study was made of a cohort of patients with special needs. First and second permanent molars with occlusal caries were treated with glass ionomer, silver amalgam and composite resin. Assessments were made at 3, 6 and 12 months, using a scale based on the original code of Ryge and the USPHS criteria.
RESULTS: A total of 34 patients and 102 restorations comprised the study sample. The survival rate of both the glass ionomer and silver amalgam was 100%, versus 97.1% in the case of composite resin. The glass ionomer afforded good marginal adaptation and stable color, with no fractures or secondary caries.
CONCLUSIONS: The glass ionomer remained successfully for one year in the occlusal cavities of the permanent molars, with the same survival rate as silver amalgam, and better survival than composite resin, in the patients with special needs.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.4317/medoral.26537

Bioengineering (Basel). 2024 Jun 07. pii: 579. [Epub ahead of print]11(6):

Survival Rates of Amalgam and Composite Resin Restorations from Big Data Real-Life Databases in the Era of Restricted Dental Mercury Use.

Guy Tobias, Tali Chackartchi, Jonathan Mann, Doron Haim, Mordechai Findler.

Tooth decay, also known as caries, is a significant medical problem that harms teeth. Treatment is based on the removal of the carious material and then filling the cavity left in the tooth, most commonly with amalgam or composite resin. The consequences of filling failure include repeating the filling or performing another treatment such as a root canal or extraction. Dental amalgam contains mercury, and there is a global effort to reduce its use. However, no consensus has been reached regarding whether amalgam or composite resin materials are more durable, and which is the best restorative material, when using randomized clinical trials. To determine which material is superior, we performed a retrospective cohort study using a large database where the members of 58 dental clinics with 440 dental units were treated. The number of failures of the amalgam compared to composite resin restorations between 2014 and 2021 were compared. Our data included information from over 650,000 patients. Between 2014-2021, 260,905 patients were treated. In total, 19,692 out of the first 113,281 amalgam restorations failed (17.49%), whereas significantly fewer composite restorations failed (11.98%) with 65,943 out of 555,671. This study indicates that composite is superior to amalgam and therefore it is reasonable to cease using mercury-containing amalgam.

Keywords: amalgam; big data; composite resin; tooth decay

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/bioengineering11060579