Subjective versus objective, polymer bur-based selective carious tissue removal: 2-year randomized clinical trial.

OBJECTIVES: We aimed to compare subjective (S) selective carious tissue removal using hand instruments versus objective (O) removal using a self-limiting polymer bur in a single-blind cluster-randomized controlled superiority trial. METHODS: 115 children (aged 7-8 years) with ≥1 vital primary molar with a deep dentin lesion (>1/2 dentin depth) were included and randomized (60 S/55 O); all eligible molars in a child were treated identically (91 S/86 O). Cavities were prepared and carious tissue on pulpal walls selectively removed using hand instruments (S) or a self-limiting polymer bur (Polybur P1, Komet), followed by restoration using a glass hybrid material (Equia Forte, GC). Treatment time and satisfaction data have been reported in a 1-year-interim report. We here report on 2 year survival (tooth retained with or without further retreatments being needed, or tooth exfoliated), analyzed using multi-level Cox-regression analysis, as well as success (ART criteria 0/1, no pulpal complications, no re-intervention needed, or tooth extraction). RESULTS: 71 restorations in S and 65 in O were examined after a mean (SD, range) of 22 (11; 3-31) months, of which 50 S and 48 O restorations were successful and 70 S and 65 O survived. The majority of failures were restorative, not pulpal, and distribution of ART codes was not significant different between groups. Risk of failure was not significantly associated with the removal protocol (HR; 95 % CI: 0.95; 0.51-1.78), and also not age, sex or dental arch, while single surfaced restorations showed significantly lower hazard (0.14; 0.06-0.37). CONCLUSION: There was no significant difference in success or survival between objective and subjective carious tissue removal. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: In primary teeth, subjective selective excavation had no disadvantage compared with objective excavation, which required a separate instrument (polymer-based bur) for carious tissue removal. Polymer-based burs may be particularly useful when standardized excavation is needed.

Are Brazilian dentists and dental students using the ICCC recommendations for caries management?

The aim of this study was to evaluate whether dentists and dental undergraduate students know the terminology of the International Caries Consensus Collaboration (ICCC), and make their restorative treatment decisions regarding carious tissue removal accordingly. Data collection was performed using an electronic questionnaire, considering: a) profile of the respondent; b) analysis of four clinical cases with respect to possible management strategies; and c) questions on cariology field terminology. Sample size consisted of 175 dentists and 66 last semester dental students. Statistical analyses were performed comparing profile, type of institution and dental specialty of the participants. Results showed students were less conservative and agreed less with the ICCC than dentists, and private schools, less than public institutions. Private institutions were 12% (95%CI = 0.833-0.949; p = 0.000) more likely to be less updated with the ICCC recommendations than public institutions, and dentists were 20% more likely to agree with them than students (95%CI = 1.118-1.302; p = 0.000). Dentists were 66% more likely to be conservative than students (95%CI = 0.203-0.554; p = 0.000); dentists and students who graduated or were graduating from public universities were twice as likely to be conservative as those from private universities (95%CI = 1.336-3.333; p = 0.001). In conclusion, students in the last semester are less conservative than dentists, and respondents who graduated or were graduating from public dental schools were more aligned with the current concepts of the ICCC. Several answers were not aligned with ICCC directives, thus showing that management of deep carious lesions still causes restorative therapeutic insecurity.

Subjective versus objective, polymer bur-based selective carious tissue removal: 1-year interim analysis of a randomized clinical trial.

We aimed to compare subjective (S) vs. objective (O) selective carious tissue removal using hand-excavation versus a self-limiting polymer bur, respectively. A community-based single-blind cluster-randomized controlled superiority trial was performed. This is a 1-year-interim analysis. 115 children (age 7-8 years) with ≥1 vital primary molar with a deep dentin lesion (>1/2 dentin depth) were included (60 S/55 O). The cluster was the child, with eligible molars being treated identically (91 S/86 O). Cavities were prepared and carious tissue on pulpo-proximal walls selectively removed using hand instruments (S), or a self-limiting polymer bur (Polybur P1, Komet). Cavities were restored using glass-hybrid material (Equia Forte, GC). Treatment times and children's satisfaction were recorded. Generalized-linear models (GLM) and multi-level Cox-regression analysis were applied. Initial treatment times were not significantly different between protocols (mean; 95%CI S: 433; 404-462 sec; O: 412; 382-441 sec; p = 0.378/GLM). There was no significant difference in patients' satisfaction (p = 0.164). No pulpal exposures occurred. 113 children were re-examined. Failures occurred in 22/84 O-molars (26.2%) and 26/90 S-molars (28.9%). Pulpal complications occurred in 5(6%) O and 2(2.2%) S molars, respectively. Risk of failure was not significantly associated with the removal protocol, age, sex, dental arch or tooth type (p > 0.05/Cox), but was nearly 5-times higher in multi-surface than single-surface restorations (HR: 4.60; 95% CI: 1.70-12.4). Within the limitations of this interim analysis, there was no significant difference in treatment time, satisfaction and risk of failure between O and S.

Are Brazilian dentists and dental students using the ICCC recommendations for caries management?

Abstract The aim of this study was to evaluate whether dentists and dental undergraduate students know the terminology of the International Caries Consensus Collaboration (ICCC), and make their restorative treatment decisions regarding carious tissue removal accordingly. Data collection was performed using an electronic questionnaire, considering: a) profile of the respondent; b) analysis of four clinical cases with respect to possible management strategies; and c) questions on cariology field terminology. Sample size consisted of 175 dentists and 66 last semester dental students. Statistical analyses were performed comparing profile, type of institution and dental specialty of the participants. Results showed students were less conservative and agreed less with the ICCC than dentists, and private schools, less than public institutions. Private institutions were 12% (95%CI = 0.833-0.949; p = 0.000) more likely to be less updated with the ICCC recommendations than public institutions, and dentists were 20% more likely to agree with them than students (95%CI = 1.118-1.302; p = 0.000). Dentists were 66% more likely to be conservative than students (95%CI = 0.203-0.554; p = 0.000); dentists and students who graduated or were graduating from public universities were twice as likely to be conservative as those from private universities (95%CI = 1.336-3.333; p = 0.001). In conclusion, students in the last semester are less conservative than dentists, and respondents who graduated or were graduating from public dental schools were more aligned with the current concepts of the ICCC. Several answers were not aligned with ICCC directives, thus showing that management of deep carious lesions still causes restorative therapeutic insecurity.