CLINICAL AND RADIOGRAPHIC EFFICIENCY OF PRIMARY MOLARS RESTORATION AFTER ENDODONTIC TREATMENT: 12 MONTHS FOLLOW-UP

Liutikov O.

DENTISTRY

Scentific article

The aim of this prospective study was to evaluate clinical and radiographic success of endodontically treated primary molars restored with resin composites (with different adhesives) or glass ionomers at 12 months follow-up. Materials and methods. 32 children 4-7 y. o. (mean 5.6±0.9) were included in clinical trial. 64 primary molars after endodontic treatment with Class II cavities was randomly divided in three groups according to restorative protocol: G1 – glass ionomer (n=20), G2 — resin composite with etch&rinse adhesive (n=28), G3 — with self-etch (n=16). Clinical evaluation was performed with modified USPHS criteria (marginal adaptation, marginal discoloration, retention, enamel loss) at baseline, 3, 6 and 12 months, x-ray control - after 1 year. Statistical analysis was performed with Fisher’s exact test (p<0,05). Result. After 12 months 60 teeth was examined (93.75%), 4 teeth in G1 was extracted due clinical and radiographic failures (internal resorption, pathological root resorption, furcal radiolucency). At 12 months marks “A” for marginal adaptation was 42,11% (G1), 85,71% (G2), 68,75% (G3); for marginal discoloration – 26,32%, 78,57%, 62,50% respectively. Absents or partial loss of glass ionomer was recorded in 25%. There was no significant differences during clinical examination between baseline and 12–month follow-up in resin composite groups for all criteria. After 12 months RC had better clinical condition then GI restorations according USPHS criteria (p>0.05). Radiographic failures was recorded in 3 teeth in G1 and in 1 case in G3 (periapical or furcal radiolucency, internal root resorption). Radiographic failures in glass ionomer group (G1) was always associated with defective coronal restoration. Radiological success for was 85,0% (G1), 100% (G2), 93,75% (G3) (p>0.05). Success rate of endodontic treatment and postendodontic restoration was 96,4% for resin composite with etch&rinse adhesive, 81,25% for RC with self-etch adhesive; 65,0% for GIC (p<0.05). Conclusion. Success rate of Class II restorations in primary molars after endodontic treatment with resin composites was higher than with glass ionomer. High rate of clinical and radiographic failures in glass ionomer group can be associated with coronal microleakage. Resin composites with etch&rinse adhesive can be suitable alternative for primary molars restoration after endodontic treatment with Class II cavities.

primary molars, restoration, resin composite, glass ionomer, endodontic treatment

• 1. Смоляр Н.І. Оцінка ефективності лікування карієсу молочних зубів у дітей (ретроспективний аналіз) / Н.І. Смоляр, О.Б. Гринишин // Український стоматологічний альманах. – 2013. — № 4. – С. 70-75.
• 2. Смоляр Н.І. Локалізація каріозних порожнин в молочних молярах у дітей (за архівними історіями хвороб) / Н.І. Смоляр, О.Б. Гринишин // Вісник стоматології. – 2013. — № 1. – С. 196-197.
• 3. AAPD Guideline on Pulp Therapy for Primary and Immature Permanent Teeth. – Reference manual. – 2014. – Vol. 37. — № 6. – Р. 244-252.
• 4. AAPD Guideline on Behavior Guidance for the Pediatric Dental Patient. – 2015. — P. 180-193.
• 5. American Association of Endodontists Clinical Guideline Clinical and Biological Implications in Endodontic Success. – 2002.
• 6. Cehreli Z. Clinical performance of pulpotomized primary molars restored with resin-based materials. 24-month results / Z. Cehreli, A. Cetinguc, S. Cengiz // Am J Dent. – 2006. – Vol. 19. P. 262-266.
• 7. Cvar JF. Reprint of criteria for the clinical evaluation of dental restorative materials. 1971 / JF. Cvar, G. Ryge // Clin Oral Investig. – 2005. – Vol. 9 (4). – P. 215-232.
• 8. Elkhadem A. No clear evidence of superiority regarding pulp medicaments in primary molars / A. Elkhadem, I. Sami // Evid Based Dent. — 2014. – Dec. – Vol. 15 (4). – P. 100-111.
• 9. Guelmann M. Microleakage of Restorative Techniques for Pulpotomized Primary Molars / M. Guelmann, Kelsey L. Bookmyer, Patricia Villalta, Franklin García-Godoy // Journal of Dentistry for Children. 2004. – Vol.71. – P. 209-211
• 10. Guelmann M. Permanent versus temporary restorations after emergency pulpotomies in primary molars / M. Guelmann, J. Fair, E. Bimstein // Pediatr Dent. – 2005. – Vol. 27 (6). – P. 478-481.
• 11. Guelmann M. Radiographic assessment of primary molar pulpotomies restored with resin-based materials / M. Guelmann, MF. McIlwain, RE. Primosch // Pediatr Dent. – 2005. – Vol. 27 (1). – P. 24-27.
• 12. Hommez GM Periapical health related to the quality of coronal restorations and root fillings / GM. Hommez, CR. Coppens, RJ. De Moor // Int Endod J. — 2002 Aug. – Vol. 35 (8). – P. 680-689.
• 13. Hutcheson C. Multi-surface composite vs stainless steel crown restorations after mineral trioxide aggregate pulpotomy: a randomized controlled trial / C. Hutcheson, NS. Seale, A. McWhorter, C. Kerins, J. Wright // Pediatr Dent. – 2012. – Vol. 34 (7). – P. 460-467.
• 14. Kindelan S. UK National Clinical Guidelines in Paediatric Dentistry: stainless steel preformed crowns for primary molars / S. Kindelan, P. Day, R. Nichol, N. Willmott, SA. Fayle, British Society of Paediatric Dentistry // Int J Paediatr Dent. – 2008. – Vol 18. Suppl 1. – P. 20-28.
• 15. Po-Yen Lin Primary molar pulpotomy: A systematic review and network meta-analysis / Po-Yen Lin, Hsueh-Szu Chen, Yu-Hsiang Wangd, Yu-Kang Tu // Jouranl of dentistry. – 2014. – Vol. 42. – Р. 1060-177.
• 16. Randall RC. Efficacy of preformed metal crowns vs. amalgam restorations of primary molars: a systematic review / RC. Randall, MM. Vrijhoef, NH. Wilson // J Am Dent Assoc. – 2000. – Vol. 131. – P. 337-343.
• 17. Ray HA. Periapical status of endodontically treated teeth in relation to the technical quality of the root filling andthe coronal restoration / HA. Ray, M. Trope // Int Endodont J. – 1995. – Vol. 28. P. 12-18.
• 18. Tavares PB. Prevalence of apical periodontitis in root canal-treated teeth from an urban French population: influence of the quality of root canal fillings and coronal restorations / PB. Tavares, E. Bonte, T. Boukpessi, JF. Siqueira Jr, JJ. Lasfargues // J Endod. — 2009 Jun. — Vol. 35 (6). – P. 810-813.
• 19. Tronstad L Influence of coronal restorations on the periapical health of endodontically treated teeth / L. Tronstad, K. Asbjørnsen, L. Døving, I. Pedersen, HM. Eriksen // Endod Dent Traumatol. — 2000 Oct. – Vol. 16 (5). – P. 218-221.
• 20. Zulfikaroglu BT. Clinical performance of Class II adhesive restorations in pulpectomized primary molars: 12-month results / BT. Zulfikaroglu, AS. Atac, ZC. Cehreli // J Dent Child (Chic). – 2008. – Vol. 75 (1). – P. 33-44.

«Bulletin of problems biology and medicine» Issue 1 part 2 (127), 2016 year, 245-251 pages, index UDK 616.314.9-08