The use of rubber dam in the survival of RMGIC restorations in primary molars: a 30-month randomized controlled clinical trial.

IF 1.5 4区 医学 Q3 DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE Brazilian oral research Pub Date : 2024-01-05 eCollection Date: 2024-01-01 DOI:10.1590/1807-3107bor-2024.vol38.0009
Vanessa Dos Santos Brum, Maria Luiza Vieira Borges, Nicole Marchioro Dos Santos, Camila Kaufmann, Jonas de Almeida Rodrigues
{"title":"The use of rubber dam in the survival of RMGIC restorations in primary molars: a 30-month randomized controlled clinical trial.","authors":"Vanessa Dos Santos Brum, Maria Luiza Vieira Borges, Nicole Marchioro Dos Santos, Camila Kaufmann, Jonas de Almeida Rodrigues","doi":"10.1590/1807-3107bor-2024.vol38.0009","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>This study was a randomized controlled clinical trial with two parallel arms and the objective was to compare the survival of resin modified glass ionomer (RMGIC) restorations in primary teeth using rubber dam or cotton roll isolation after a 30-month follow-up period. Ninety-two children (mean age 6.8 ± 1.37) and 200 primary molars with occlusal or occluso-proximal cavitated dentin caries lesions were randomly assigned into two groups: cotton rolls and rubber dam. All lesions were restored using RMGIC (RIVA Light Cure) after selective caries removal. Restorative failure and lesion arrestment were evaluated by two independent, trained, and calibrated examiners through clinical and radiographic examinations. The Kaplan-Meier test was used to assess the survival of restorations and Cox regression was used to assess the association of risk factors with restorative failure. There was no significant difference in survival rates between groups (p = 0.17). Older age (HR = 2.81 [95%CI: 1.47-5.44]) and higher rate of gingival bleeding (HR = 0.47 [95%CI: 0.23-0.99]) were associated with restorative failure. No patient had painful symptoms, pulp outcomes, or radiographic changes compatible with lesion progression. The use of rubber dam isolation did not increase the survival rate of occlusal and occluso-proximal restorations using RMGIC in primary molars after 30 months of follow-up. Since the survival is not influenced by the type of isolation, the professional can safely choose the appropriate technique for each case, considering his experience and preferences, as well as those of the patient.</p>","PeriodicalId":9240,"journal":{"name":"Brazilian oral research","volume":"38 ","pages":"e009"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11376601/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Brazilian oral research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1590/1807-3107bor-2024.vol38.0009","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This study was a randomized controlled clinical trial with two parallel arms and the objective was to compare the survival of resin modified glass ionomer (RMGIC) restorations in primary teeth using rubber dam or cotton roll isolation after a 30-month follow-up period. Ninety-two children (mean age 6.8 ± 1.37) and 200 primary molars with occlusal or occluso-proximal cavitated dentin caries lesions were randomly assigned into two groups: cotton rolls and rubber dam. All lesions were restored using RMGIC (RIVA Light Cure) after selective caries removal. Restorative failure and lesion arrestment were evaluated by two independent, trained, and calibrated examiners through clinical and radiographic examinations. The Kaplan-Meier test was used to assess the survival of restorations and Cox regression was used to assess the association of risk factors with restorative failure. There was no significant difference in survival rates between groups (p = 0.17). Older age (HR = 2.81 [95%CI: 1.47-5.44]) and higher rate of gingival bleeding (HR = 0.47 [95%CI: 0.23-0.99]) were associated with restorative failure. No patient had painful symptoms, pulp outcomes, or radiographic changes compatible with lesion progression. The use of rubber dam isolation did not increase the survival rate of occlusal and occluso-proximal restorations using RMGIC in primary molars after 30 months of follow-up. Since the survival is not influenced by the type of isolation, the professional can safely choose the appropriate technique for each case, considering his experience and preferences, as well as those of the patient.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
在小磨牙 RMGIC 修复体存活过程中使用橡胶坝:一项为期 30 个月的随机对照临床试验。
该研究是一项随机对照临床试验,分为两组,目的是比较使用橡胶坝或棉卷隔离法进行树脂改性玻璃离聚体(RMGIC)修复的乳牙在 30 个月随访后的存活率。将 92 名儿童(平均年龄为 6.8±1.37 岁)和 200 颗有咬合面或咬合面近端龋坏牙本质的乳磨牙随机分为两组:棉卷组和橡胶坝组。在选择性去除龋齿后,使用 RMGIC(RIVA 光固化)修复所有病变。由两名经过培训和校准的独立检查员通过临床和射线检查对修复失败和病变抑制情况进行评估。采用 Kaplan-Meier 检验评估修复体的存活率,并采用 Cox 回归评估风险因素与修复失败的关系。各组间的存活率无明显差异(P = 0.17)。年龄较大(HR = 2.81 [95%CI: 1.47-5.44])和牙龈出血率较高(HR = 0.47 [95%CI: 0.23-0.99])与修复失败有关。没有患者出现疼痛症状、牙髓结果或与病变进展相符的放射学变化。在对初级磨牙进行 30 个月的随访后,使用橡胶坝隔离并没有提高使用 RMGIC 的咬合和咬合近端修复体的存活率。由于存活率不受隔离类型的影响,专业人员可以根据自己的经验和偏好以及患者的经验和偏好,为每个病例安全地选择合适的技术。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.70
自引率
4.00%
发文量
107
审稿时长
12 weeks
期刊最新文献
Assessment of Brazilian hospital and healthcare service infrastructure for cleft lip and palate patients. Comparison of the analgesic efficacy of spray and tablet flurbiprofen for pain after soft tissue surgery. Efficacy of xenogeneic collagen matrix in the treatment of gingival recessions: a controlled clinical trial. Facial morphology analysis of Caucasian Brazilian adult women using stereophotogrammetry. Impact of an educational intervention regarding tobacco counseling on dentists and dental students.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1