A two-year randomized, controlled clinical evaluation of bonded amalgam restorations. Clinical performance of sealed composite restorations placed over caries compared with sealed and unsealed amalgam restorations. A clinical, radiographic, and scanning electron microscopic evaluation of adhesive restorations on carious dentin in primary teeth. Endodontic complications after plastic restorations in general practice. Clinical performance and caries inhibition of resin-modified glass ionomer cement and amalgam restorations. A clinical evaluation of a glass ionomer cement as an orthodontic bonding adhesive compared with an acrylic resin. Survival of three types of veneer restorations in a clinical trial: a 2.5-year interim evaluation. Clinical and radiographic evaluation of implant-retained mandibular overdentures with immediate loading. Dyract versus Tytin Class II restorations in primary molars: 36 months evaluation.
The clinical performance of adhesively bonded dental amalgam restorations was compared with that of traditionally placed non-bonded control amalgams in a randomized prospective study.
                One-hundred thirteen Class II Dispersalloy amalgams were placed in permanent molars and premolars of 31 (21 males, 10 females) human subjects with their informed consent. By random assignment, 60 amalgam restorations were adhesively bonded using ED Primer and Panavia 21 TC (both Kuraray Co, Japan), and 53 traditional non-bonded restorations were placed. Most preparations involved replacement of defective amalgam restorations. Clinical recalls were conducted by experienced evaluators using modified USPHS criteria for occlusal and proximal anatomic form, occlusal and proximal marginal adaptation, and occlusal and proximal surface roughness.
                For the categories of anatomic form, marginal adaptation, surface quality, and temperature sensitivity, there were no significant differences between bonded and non-bonded amalgam restorations (chi-square analysis, p > 0.05). Three non-bonded restorations were lost at 4, 7, and 24 months from preparations with no deliberate retention.
                After two years' clinical service, there were no failures among the amalgam restorations adhesively bonded using ED Primer and Panavia 21 TC, but three non-bonded restorations failed due to lack of retention. For traditional preparations, adhesively bonded amalgams of the type investigated perform as well as non-bonded amalgams over two years' clinical service. The 2-year clinical evaluations of paired occlusal restorations are presented. Each study participant received a sealed composite restoration placed over a carious lesion and either a traditional outline-form (unsealed) amalgam or an ultraconservative sealed amalgam restoration. Caries was removed before placement of both types of amalgam restorations. No important clinical differences developed among the three groups of restorations. The purpose of this project was to evaluate the performance of a dentin adhesive system on carious and noncarious primary dentin in vivo.
                Forty-eight primary molars with carious lesions were randomly assigned to 2 different treatments: group 1 (control, n = 24)--All identifiable, irreversibly infected dentin was removed prior to the application of the bonding agent and restorative material; group 2 (experimental, n = 24)--Irreversibly infected dentin was partially removed prior to the application of the bonding agent and restorative material. The control and experimental teeth were clinically monitored every 3 months and evaluated 12 months after restoration. The teeth were extracted around the time of exfoliation and processed for scanning electron microscopy.
                Retention rate, marginal integrity, and pulpal symptoms were identical in both groups. Radiographically, the radiolucent area associated with the experimental restorations did not increase with time in 75% of the cases. For the control group, the adhesive system formed a hybrid layer. In the experimental group, there was morphologic evidence of the formation of an acid-resistant "altered hybrid layer." An acid-resistant tissue, resulting from the interdiffusion of adhesive resin within the area of carious dentin, was observed adjacent to and under the altered hybrid layer.
                Application of an adhesive restorative system to irreversibly infected dentin did not affect the clinical performance of the restoration. To test the hypothesis that dentine and pulp protection by conditioning-and-sealing is no less effective than using a conventional calcium hydroxide lining.
                A cohort of healthy adults requiring a new or replacement restoration in a posterior tooth was recruited in six general practices. All procedures received local Ethics Committee approval. Exclusion criteria included signs and symptoms of pulp necrosis or inflammation, and patients unable to commit to a long-term trial. Cavity preparations were randomized to receive a calcium hydroxide lining or conditioning-and-sealing with a smear-removing bonding system. Choice of bulk restorative material (composite resin or amalgam) was at the discretion of the dentist. The key outcome measure was evidence of pulpal breakdown identified at unscheduled (emergency) or scheduled recall examinations. Postoperative sensitivity was recorded on 100 mm VAS at 24 h, 4 days and 7 days. Pulp status was assessed at 6, 12, 24 and 36 month recall, and at any emergency recall appointment. The relationship between pre-treatment and treatment variables and pulp breakdown was assessed by logistic regression (P = 0.05).
                A total of 602 teeth were recruited, with comparable numbers of cavities lined (288, 47.8%) or conditioned and sealed (314, 52.2%). The majority (492, 81.7%) were replacement restorations, and amalgam was the most common bulk restorative material (377, 62.6%). A total of 390 (64.8%) restored teeth were reviewed at 6 months, 307 (51%) at 12 months, 363 (60.3%) at 24 months, and 279 (46.3%) at 36 months post-restoration. Sixteen cases of pulp breakdown were identified within 36 months of restoration placement, 11 presenting as emergencies and five detected at routine recall examination. Logistic regression showed that preoperative pain, cavity treatment by lining or conditioning-and-sealing and the use of rubber dam isolation had no association with pulp breakdown. Pulp breakdown was associated with deep or pulpally exposed cavities (P < 0.001, odds ratio 7.8) and with composite rather than amalgam restorations (P = 0.001, odds ratio 2.13). Re-coding to identify teeth with pulp exposures revealed that pulpal exposure was the key determinant of adverse pulp outcomes (P < 0.0001, odds ratio 28.4) and that composite resin restorations were again more likely to be associated with pulp breakdown than amalgam (P = 0.017, odds ratio 3.92).
                Considered within the context of routine primary dental care: Dentists can be confident that pulps will be equally well protected from post-restorative breakdown up to 36 months by calcium hydroxide lining and conditioning-and-sealing with adhesive resins. Residual dentine thickness appears to be a key determinant of pulp responses after restorative dental treatment. In deep and pulpally exposed cavities in posterior teeth, composites were associated with more pulpal breakdown than amalgams. The authors clinically examined two restorative materials to evaluate their effectiveness in Class II restorations in primary molars and their ability to inhibit recurrent caries.
                Forty subjects, each in need of two Class II restorations in primary molars, took part in this study. Each patient received one Class II restoration of resin-modified glass ionomer cement and one of amalgam. The authors evaluated the restorations at six-month, one-year, two-year and three-year recall appointments. On exfoliation, teeth with experimental restorations were retrieved and microscopically examined for inhibition of demineralization at restoration margins.
                The results of the clinical evaluation demonstrated no significant differences between the resin-modified glass ionomer cement restorations and the amalgam restorations (P < .05). Polarized light microscopic examination of the returned teeth that were restored as a part of this study indicated that the resin-modified glass ionomer cement had significantly less enamel demineralization at restoration margins than did amalgam (P < .0001).
                The resin-modified glass ionomer cement functioned clinically as well as amalgam for Class II restorations in primary molars. However, the resin-modified glass ionomer exhibited significantly less enamel demineralization at restoration margins than did amalgam.
                Resin-modified glass ionomer cement restorative material functions well for Class II restorations in primary molars and exhibits less recurrent caries at restoration margins than does amalgam. Glass ionomer cement (GIC) has been suggested as an alternative to acrylic resin in bracket bonding because of its fluoride release. The aim of this clinical trial was to evaluate further the suitability of GIC as a bonding adhesive compared with an acrylic resin with regard to frequency of bracket failure, fracture modes and clean-up time after debonding. Two commercially available brackets were tested, one with a meshed foil base and the other with an integral base. A total of 60 patients, with a mean age of 13 years 7 months (range 10 years 8 months to 19 years 1 month) were consecutively selected. Brackets were bonded with a GIC (AquaCem, De Trey) and a no-mix diacrylate (Unite, Unitek Corp.) according to random assignment for each jaw. One group of patients (n = 30) was bonded with metal brackets with machine cut grooves in the base (DynaLock, Unitek). In the second group (n = 30) brackets with a meshed foil base (Unitwin, Unitek) were used. Bracket failure location during treatment was recorded as were fracture modes and time required for the clean-up of enamel surfaces at debonding. The frequency of failed brackets was higher with GIC (36 per cent) than with the diacrylate (15 per cent). Bracket failures for the cut groove base type occurred in 50 per cent with GIC and 23 per cent with the acrylic, meshed foil bases failed in 22 per cent GIC and in 7 per cent with the acrylic, respectively. The differences in failure between bracket types were significant at P < 0.001 for both bonding materials. Analysis of the fracture modes showed a small but noticeable difference in the strength of adhesion to the enamel surface, favouring GIC. Time required for the clean-up of enamel surfaces showed a significantly shorter debonding time for GIC. It is concluded that the use of a GIC for orthodontic bonding purposes considerably increases the risk of bond failures during treatment, especially in combination with a cut groove base type. One noticeable advantage with GIC bonding, however, is the shorter clean-up time for the enamel surfaces. In this clinical trial, 180 veneer restorations (VRs) were evaluated. The purpose of the study was to collect survival data and to find possible relations between survival and (1) 'type of VR', (2) 'preparation design', (3) 'operator' and (4) the patient-related variables 'tooth-type' and 'vitality of the tooth'.
                The restorations were provided by seven dentists in 1 12 patients on central and lateral maxillary incisors. Experimental variables were: 'type of VR' (either direct resin composite (DC), indirect resin composite (IC) or porcelain (P)), 'preparation design' (with and without incisal overlap) and 'operator'. Failures were recorded at two levels: absolute failure (need for new restoration) and relative failure (need for repair). Survival was defined at three levels: (1) survival of original restoration (Sr, endpoints: 'absolute' failures), (2) functional survival (Sf, endpoints: 'relative' failures) and (3) overall survival (SO, endpoints: both 'absolute-' and 'relative failures').
                The variable 'type of VR' showed significant influence on Sf and So but not on Sr. Sf and So rates of P, IC and DC were, respectively: Sf-P, 94%; So-P, 94%; Sf-IC, 94%; So-IC, 90%; Sf-DC, 80%; So-DC, 74%. VRs on vital teeth showed a significantly better survival than VRs on non-vital teeth at all survival levels.
                Preparation of the incisal edge for incisal coverage is considered to be unnecessary to assure or improve the strength of VRs. Veneers on non-vital teeth showed higher risk to fail than veneers placed on vital teeth. Porcelain veneers showed the best overall survival. The aim of this study was to evaluate and compare immediate-loaded implant-retained mandibular overdentures and delayed-loaded implant-retained mandibular overdentures.
                Ten completely edentulous male patients received 40 dental implants. Patients were randomly divided into 2 equal groups, 5 patients each. Patients of both groups received conventional maxillary complete denture and had stage 1 surgery for placing 4 dental implant fixtures, 2 on each side anterior to the mental foramina. Group A: One-stage surgical procedure and immediate loading. Patients in this group received mandibular bar-retained overdenture supported by 4 endosseous implants loaded immediately after implant placement. Group B: The original 2-stage concept and delayed loading. Patients in this group received mandibular bar-retained overdenture supported by 4 endosseous implants that remained submerged for a period of 4 months before loading. The patients were evaluated clinically and radiographically immediately after overdenture delivery and after 6 months, 12 months, 18 months, and 24 months.
                The results of clinical evaluation showed no statistical significant difference between the 2 groups regarding the effect of treatment. The radiographic assessment showed no statistical significant difference in mesial and distal alveolar bone loss at the different intervals of the follow-up period, except at the 12-month period, where immediately loaded implants showed a decrease in the amount of alveolar bone loss mesially and distally compared to delayed loaded implants.
                The results suggest that immediate-loaded implants provide promising results compared to delayed-loaded implants and can be a possible alternative procedure in implant dentistry. Due to the changed treatment approach of proximal caries and the amalgam controversy, clinicians are in search for new materials. The aim of the present study was to compare amalgam with an adhesive material in deciduous molars in a clinical, split-mouth design study. At baseline 30 polyacid modified composite (Dyract) and 30 amalgam (Tytin) restorations were placed in primary molars, of which 24 and 17 could be evaluated after 24 and 36 months, respectively. Modified USPHS criteria were used for clinical evaluation every 6 months. Annual bite-wing radiographs were taken for evaluation of recurrent caries and cervical gap formation. In the present study, for Dyract as well as for Tytin restorations, low rates of recurrent caries were found, while Dyract restorations showed a better marginal adaptation and surface texture compared to Tytin restorations. In the Dyract group more radiolucencies were found at baseline. In both groups no patient complaint or pain was reported related to the radiolucencies. After 3 years the colour of Dyract was not comparable to the original. For Dyract no excessive wear was noticed compared to enamel. During the study one Dyract (recurrent caries: 18 months) and two Tytin (pulpal aetiology: 6 months, recurrent caries: 36 months) restorations had to be replaced. Even though the restorations were placed in caries risk children, at the 36 months' evaluation of this clinical study, the results indicate that Dyract can be an alternative for Tytin in the primary dentition.
There is no evidence to either claim or refute a difference in survival between bonded and non-bonded amalgam restorations. This review only found one methodologically sound but somewhat under-reported trial. This trial did not find any significant difference in the in-service performance of moderately sized adhesively bonded amalgam restorations, in terms of their survival rate and marginal integrity, in comparison to non-bonded amalgam restorations over a 2-year period. In view of the lack of evidence on the additional benefit of adhesively bonding amalgam in comparison with non-bonded amalgam, it is important that clinicians are mindful of the additional costs that may be incurred.