| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
|
|
|
|||||||
|
|||||||||
RESEARCH REPORT |
Faculty of Dentistry, University of Hong Kong, 3/F, Prince Philip Dental Hospital, 34 Hospital Road, Hong Kong SAR, China
* corresponding author, edward-lo{at}hku.hk
 |
ABSTRACT |
|---|
 TOP ABSTRACT INTRODUCTIONMATERIALS & METHODSRESULTSDISCUSSIONREFERENCES |
|---|
KEY WORDS: root caries • atraumatic restorative treatment • glass-ionomer cement • clinical trial • Chinese • age • restoration survival
|
INTRODUCTION |
|---|
|
TOPABSTRACTINTRODUCTIONMATERIALS & METHODSRESULTSDISCUSSIONREFERENCES |
|---|
With an increase in the number of elders and the retention of more natural teeth into old age, there is an increasing need for preventive and restorative dental services among older adults, especially for underserved populations, such as institutionalized elders (Chalmers et al., 2002; Petersen, 2003). Since financial, access, and motivational barriers are common among elders living in various institutions, alternative dental care service delivery approaches, such as outreach services, are needed (Guay, 2004; Lo et al., 2004).
Restorative treatment for root caries is often difficult. Compared with coronal caries, little information on the success of the current methods of treating root caries is available (König, 2004). In the treatment of root-surface caries lesions, the conventional approach of ‘drilling and filling’ is commonly adopted. This approach requires the use of power-driven dental rotary instruments for the removal of decayed dental tissues and for cavity preparation. Local anesthetic injection is usually required to allow the procedures to be performed painlessly. Recently, glass-ionomer materials have become popular for restoring cavities in root surfaces, due to their better esthetics and ability to bond to the tooth (Burgess and Gallo, 2002; König, 2004).
The Atraumatic Restorative Treatment (ART) approach has been shown to be useful for treating tooth decay in children in developing countries and among disadvantaged communities (Massara et al., 2002; Frencken et al., 2004). ART has also been used in other populations, including the home-bound elders and people living in nursing homes (Pilot, 1999). The survival rates of single-surface ART restorations placed in permanent teeth of children have been promising, being as high as 90% after 3 yrs reported in studies in Zimbabwe (Frencken et al., 1998) and in China (Holmgren et al., 2000). However, little information on the use of the ART approach to treat root caries among elderly people is available.
This study aimed to investigate the effectiveness of using the ART approach in treating root caries in elders living in residential and nursing homes. The hypothesis of this study was that survival rates of root restorations placed by the ART and the conventional technique were similar.
|
MATERIALS & METHODS |
|---|
|
TOPABSTRACTINTRODUCTIONMATERIALS & METHODSRESULTSDISCUSSIONREFERENCES |
|---|
All clinical examinations were conducted where the subjects resided. The subjects were examined in a portable dental chair, and an extra-oral portable clinic light provided adequate illumination. Plaque and calculus obscuring visual inspection of root surfaces were removed by means of hand instruments and oral hygiene aids. Root-surface caries was diagnosed through visual-tactile examination (Banting, 2001). A sharp explorer was used to test for softness of the dentin at the base of any discolored cavity on the root surface. Caries was recorded when the dentin could be penetrated with light force. Root caries lesions 1 mm or more in depth, as measured with a marked periodontal probe on teeth not indicated for extraction, were included in this study. Lesions involving or judged to be very close to the dental pulp were excluded. We tossed a coin to allocate the selected lesions randomly to receive one of the two study treatments: restorations placed by the conventional or by the ART approach. For patients who had 2 root-caries lesions, both types of treatment were provided. The treatment assignment procedure was repeated if there were more than 2 lesions in a subject. In determining the sample size, we regarded a difference in restoration survival rate of 15% or more as clinically significant. Using an 80% power and a 5% statistical significance level, we found that around 80 restorations in each group were required.
All restorations were placed, in early 2003, by one experienced dentist, aided by a chairside assistant. When a cavity was prepared by the ART technique, only hand instruments were used in the removal of decayed dental tissues. Attempts were made to remove all the soft dentin from the cavity. Cotton rolls and gingival retraction cord were used when necessary for field isolation and moisture control. The prepared cavity was cleaned and then conditioned for 10–15 sec with the liquid of the glass ionomer, diluted with an equal amount of water. The prepared cavity was cleaned with water, dried, and then restored with a high-strength chemically cured glass-ionomer material (Ketac Molar, 3M ESPE, Seefeld, Germany). We used a clear cellulose matrix when building up the contour of the root.
When a caries cavity was treated with the conventional approach, local anesthesia was given when required. Cotton rolls and gingival retraction cord were used for field isolation and moisture control. Decayed tooth tissues were removed by means of dental burs until the floor and walls of the cavity were found to be hard. The cavity was washed with water from a 3-in-1 syringe and then dried. The prepared cavity was conditioned with polyacrylic acid for 10–15 sec, washed, dried, and restored with a resin-modified glass-ionomer material (Fuji II LC, GC Corporation, Tokyo, Japan). A curing light was used, and the restoration was polished during the same visit.
Status of the restorations was assessed at six-month intervals by a dentist who was not involved in the provision of the treatments, and who did not know which technique had been used in placing the restoration. The evaluation criteria used in most ART studies were adopted (Frencken et al., 1998). The presence and status of the restoration, and the need for replacement or repair, were assessed. Sound restorations or restorations with marginal defect or wear less than 0.5 mm, measured by the ball tip of a CPI periodontal probe, were classified as having ‘survived’. The modified US Public Health Service (USPHS) criteria for evaluation of restorative materials (Ryge, 1980) were also used to assess the status of the restorations with respect to retention, marginal integrity, marginal discoloration, recurrent caries, anatomical form, and surface texture. The examiner (YL) was trained and experienced in assessing restorations using the above two sets of criteria (Lo et al., 2001). Duplicate examinations were carried out on 10% of the patients for the assessment of intra-examiner reproducibility throughout the study.
Data Analysis
Statistical analyses were carried out with SPSS 11.5 software (SPSS, Chicago, IL, USA). We used the chi-square test to compare differences in survival rates between ART and conventional restorations. We used life-table survival analysis to estimate the cumulative survival rates of the restorations, and the Wilcoxon (Gehan) statistic to compare the survival rates of the 2 types of restorations. The level of statistical significance was set at 0.05.
|
RESULTS |
|---|
|
TOPABSTRACTINTRODUCTIONMATERIALS & METHODSRESULTSDISCUSSIONREFERENCES |
|---|
At the 12-month examination, 66.1% of the ART restorations were assessed as being ‘present and sound’, and 20.3% as having a ‘slight marginal defect or wear’, according to the ART criteria (Table 1
). Among the conventional restorations, 66.7% were ‘present and sound’, and 25.4% had a slight defect. The respective survival rates of the ART and conventional restorations were 86.4% (95% C.I. = 77.7–95.1%) and 92.1% (95% C.I. = 85.4–98.8%). The difference was not statistically significant (Chi-square test, p = 0.385). The main reasons for restoration failure were gross marginal defect and loss of retention. No statistically significant differences (Chi-square test, p > 0.05) were found between the two types of restorations for each of the USPHS criteria (Table 2).
|
|
). The difference between the two survival rates was not statistically significant (Gehan’s Wilcoxon test, p = 0.30). Furthermore, there were no statistically significant differences in the survival rates of restorations placed in different tooth surfaces (mesial/distal vs. buccal/lingual) or in different tooth types (anterior vs. posterior).
|
|
DISCUSSION |
|---|
|
TOPABSTRACTINTRODUCTIONMATERIALS & METHODSRESULTSDISCUSSIONREFERENCES |
|---|
To avoid having a high patient dropout rate due to poor general health or death, we excluded frail elders in the nursing homes. Only patients having self-care ability for normal basic daily activities, including toothbrushing, were included. After 1 yr, around 60 (75%) of the restorations in each treatment group were evaluated. This was considered adequate for proper statistical analysis, since this sample size has an 80% power to detect a difference of 16% in survival rates between groups.
In the present study, around 10% of the restorations in both the ART and the conventional approach groups failed, mainly having been lost, most likely due to difficulty in achieving good moisture control under field conditions, especially in circumstances where there was exudation of gingival crevicular fluid or blood. This would have led to a weakening of the adhesion of the glass-ionomer restoration to prepared root cavities.
At the 12-month examination, caries related to root restoration was detected in 3 teeth, 2 in the ART group and 1 in the conventional group. Glass ionomer being a fluoride-containing restorative material may have a cariostatic effect, but it is not known whether the level of fluoride release is sufficient for inhibiting demineralization (Pereira et al., 1998). The secondary caries detected might also have developed from residual caries left in the prepared cavity, because the use of hand instruments in the ART technique may result in some carious tooth tissue being left behind (van Amerongen, 1996). Complete removal of carious tissue is still recommended prior to the placement of an ART restoration (Weerheijm et al., 1999).
In this study, the 12-month cumulative survival rate of root restorations placed by the ART approach (87.0%) was comparable with that of the conventional restorations (91.7%), and higher than the 79% one-year survival rate reported in an earlier study in Finland (Honkala and Honkala, 2002), which included only 19 ART restorations in 11 subjects. The high survival rate of the ART root restorations in this study is comparable with those of single-surface ART coronal restorations placed in children (Frencken et al., 1998; Holmgren et al., 2000). As in other studies (Lo and Holmgren, 2001; Honkala and Honkala, 2002), little pain was experienced by the patients during placement of an ART restoration, and no local anesthetic was required. In addition, the ART approach has other advantages for use in outreach dental services, because it requires only a few hand instruments for the successful placement of root restorations.
It was concluded that, in institutionalized elders, the 12-month survival rate of glass-ionomer restorations placed on root surfaces by the ART approach was high and comparable with that of conventional restorations. It is planned for the root restorations in this study to be followed for 36 mos. If the survival rate of the ART restorations remains comparable with that of conventional restorations, then the ART approach can be considered for use in outreach dental services to restore root caries lesions in institutionalized elders and possibly other special-needs groups.
|
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS |
|---|
Received August 3, 2005; Last revision February 21, 2006; Accepted May 16, 2006
|
REFERENCES |
|---|
|
TOPABSTRACTINTRODUCTIONMATERIALS & METHODSRESULTSDISCUSSIONREFERENCES |
|---|
Burgess JO, Gallo JR (2002). Treating root-surface caries. Dent Clin North Am 46:385–404.[Medline]
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2003). Trends in aging—United States and worldwide. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 52:101–106.[Medline]
Chalmers JM, Hodge C, Fuss JM, Spencer AJ, Carter KD (2002). The prevalence and experience of oral diseases in Adelaide nursing home residents. Aust Dent J 47:123–130.[ISI][Medline]
Frencken JE, Makoni F, Sithole WD, Hackenitz E (1998). Three-year survival of one-surface ART restorations and glass-ionomer sealants in a school oral health programme in Zimbabwe. Caries Res 32:119–126.[ISI][Medline]
Frencken JE, van’t Hof MA, van Amerongen WE, Holmgren CJ (2004). Effectiveness of single-surface ART restorations in the permanent dentition: a meta-analysis. J Dent Res 83:120–123.
Fure S (2003). Ten-year incidence of tooth loss and dental caries in elderly Swedish individuals. Caries Res 37:462–469.[ISI][Medline]
Griffin SO, Griffin PM, Swann JL, Zlobin N (2004). Estimating rates of new root caries in older adults. J Dent Res 83:634–638.
Guay AH (2004). Access to dental care: solving the problem for underserved populations. J Am Dent Assoc 135:1599–1605.
Holmgren CJ, Lo EC, Hu D, Wan H (2000). ART restorations and sealants placed in Chinese school children—results after three years. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol 28:314–320.[ISI][Medline]
Honkala S, Honkala E (2002). Atraumatic dental treatment among Finnish elderly persons. J Oral Rehabil 29:435–440.[ISI][Medline]
König KG (2004). Clinical manifestations and treatment of caries from 1953 to global changes in the 20th century. Caries Res 38:168–172.[ISI][Medline]
Lin HC, Wong MC, Zhang HG, Lo EC, Schwarz E (2001). Coronal and root caries in Southern Chinese adults. J Dent Res 80:1475–1479.
Lo EC, Holmgren CJ (2001). Provision of Atraumatic Restorative Treatment (ART) restorations to Chinese pre-school children—a 30-month evaluation. Int J Paediatr Dent 11:3–10.[Medline]
Lo EC, Luo Y, Fan MW, Wei SH (2001). Clinical investigation of two glass-ionomer restoratives used with the atraumatic restorative treatment approach in China: two-years results. Caries Res 35:458–463.[ISI][Medline]
Lo EC, Luo Y, Dyson JE (2004). Outreach dental service for persons with special needs in Hong Kong. Spec Care Dentist 24:80–85.[Medline]
Massara ML, Alves JB, Brandão PR (2002). Atraumatic restorative treatment: clinical, ultrastructural and chemical analysis. Caries Res 36:430–436.[ISI][Medline]
Pereira PN, Inokoshi S, Tagami J (1998). In vitro secondary caries inhibition around fluoride releasing materials. J Dent 26:505–510.[ISI][Medline]
Petersen PE (2003). The World Oral Health Report 2003: continuous improvement of oral health in the 21st century—the approach of the WHO Global Oral Health Programme. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol 31 (Suppl 1):3–23.
Pilot T (1999). Introduction—ART from a global perspective. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol 27:421–422.[ISI][Medline]
Ryge G (1980). Clinical criteria. Int Dent J 30:347–358.[ISI][Medline]
van Amerongen WE (1996). Dental caries under glass ionomer restorations. J Public Health Dent 56(3 Spec No):150–154.[ISI][Medline]
Weerheijm KL, Kreulen CM, de Soet JJ, Groen HJ, van Amerongen WE (1999). Bacterial counts in carious dentine under restorations: 2-year in vivo effects. Caries Res 33:130–134.[ISI][Medline]
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
| IADR Journals | Advances in Dental Research ® |
| Journal of Dental Research ® | Critical Reviews (1990-2004) |
