head JofIMAB
Journal of IMAB - Annual Proceeding (Scientific Papers)
Publisher: Peytchinski Publishing Ltd.
ISSN: 1312-773X (Online)
Issue: 2022, vol. 28, issue3
Subject Area: Dental Medicine
DOI: 10.5272/jimab.2022283.4535
Published online: 13 September 2022

Original article
J of IMAB. 2022 Jul-Sep;28(3):4535-4540
Sevda I. RimalovskaORCID logo Corresponding Autoremail, Veselina K. KondevaORCID logo, Mariana M. DimitrovaORCID logo,
Department of Pediatric Dentistry, Faculty of Dental Medicine, Medical University of Plovdiv, Bulgaria.

Objective: To investigate the occurrence of caries associated with restorations in primary molars.
Methods: Resin-modified glass ionomer cement (n=50) and compomer (n=50) restorations of primary molars were made in 100 children. The restorations were clinically evaluated on the 3rd, 6th, 12th and 18th month with the FDI criteria.
Results: On the 3rd month recall, all restorations showed excellent clinical assessment scores for all FDI criteria. In regard to secondary caries, on the 6th month, clinically unacceptable was only one restoration. In the 12th month, 19.00% of the restorations were diagnosed with caries adjacent to the restoration. The relative share of secondary caries lesions assessed in restorations from glass ionomer cement (27.27%) was higher than that from compomer material (14.28%), as well as the restorations on the occlusal surface (38.46%), compared to those on the proximal surfaces (7.40%). Caries associated with restorations was diagnosed more frequently in relation to the caries lesions assessed as active at the first visit (29.62%) compared to the inactive lesions (7.69%). At the 18th month recall, the relative share of restorations diagnosed with secondary caries was lower (8.00%).
Conclusion: The type of restorative material, type of affected surface and the activity of the carious lesion are factors that may influence the occurrence of caries associated with restorations in primary molars. Our study showed that a critical moment for the clinical condition of the followed restorations is the 12th month of the treatment.

Keywords: caries associated with restorations, compomer materials, glass-ionomer cement, primary molars,

pdf - Download FULL TEXT /PDF 1068 KB/
Please cite this article as: Rimalovska SI, Kondeva VK, Dimitrova MM. Caries associated with restorations in primary molars – an 18-months follow-up study. J of IMAB. 2022 Jul-Sep;28(3):4535-4540. DOI: 10.5272/jimab.2022283.4535

Corresponding AutorCorrespondence to: Sevda Rimalovska, Department of Pediatric Dentistry, Faculty of Dental Medicine, Medical University of Plovdiv; 3, Hristo Botev Blvd., 4000 Plovdiv, Bulgaria; E-mail: dr.rimalovska@hotmail.com

1. Chisini LA, Collares K, Cademartori MG, de Oliveira LJC, Conde MCM, Demarco FF, Corrêa MB. Restorations in primary teeth: a systematic review on survival and reasons for failures. Int J Paediatr Dent. 2018 Mar;28(2):123-139. [PubMed]
2. Lardani L, Derchi G, Marchio V, Carli E. One-Year Clinical Performance of Activa™ Bioactive-Restorative Composite in Primary Molars. Children (Basel). 2022 Mar 19;9(3):433. [PubMed]
3. Mjör IA, Moorhead JE, Dahl JE. Reasons for replacement of restorations in permanent teeth in general dental practice. Int Dent J. 2000 Dec;50(6):361-6. [PubMed]
4. Arangannal P, Mahadev SK, Jayaprakash J. Prevalence of Dental Caries among School Children in Chennai, Based on ICDAS II. J Clin Diagn Res. 2016 Apr;10(4):ZC09-12. [PubMed]
5. Dorri M, Martinez-Zapata MJ, Walsh T, Marinho VC, Sheiham Deceased A, Zaror C. Atraumatic restorative treatment versus conventional restorative treatment for managing dental caries. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017 Dec 28;12(12):CD008072. [PubMed]
6. Ortiz-Ruiz AJ, Pérez-Guzmán N, Rubio-Aparicio M, Sánchez-Meca J. Success rate of proximal tooth-coloured direct restorations in primary teeth at 24 months: a meta-analysis. Sci Rep. 2020 Apr 14;10(1):6409. [PubMed]
7. Santamaría RM, Innes NPT, Machiulskiene V, Schmoeckel J, Alkilzy M, Splieth CH. Alternative Caries Management Options for Primary Molars: 2.5-Year Outcomes of a Randomised Clinical Trial. Caries Res. 2017;51(6):605-614. [PubMed]
8. Mjör IA, Toffenetti F. Secondary caries: a literature review with case reports. Quintessence Int. 2000 Mar;31(3):165-79. [PubMed]
9. Mjör IA. Clinical diagnosis of recurrent caries. J Am Dent Assoc. 2005 Oct;136(10):1426-33. [PubMed]
10. Dias AGA, Magno MB, Delbem ACB, Cunha RF, Maia LC, Pessan JP. Clinical performance of glass ionomer cement and composite resin in Class II restorations in primary teeth: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Dent. 2018 Jun;73:1-13. [PubMed]
11. Cenci MS, Pereira-Cenci T, Cury JA, Ten Cate JM. Relationship between gap size and dentine secondary caries formation assessed in a microcosm biofilm model. Caries Res. 2009;43(2):97-102. [PubMed]
12. Pummer A, Cieplik F, Nikolić M, Buchalla W, Hiller KA, Schmalz G. Longevity of posterior composite and compomer restorations in children placed under different types of anesthesia: a retrospective 5-year study. Clin Oral Investig. 2020 Jan;24(1):141-150. [PubMed]
13. Hatirli H, Yasa B, Çelik EU. Clinical performance of high-viscosity glass ionomer and resin composite on minimally invasive occlusal restorations performed without rubber-dam isolation: a two-year randomised split-mouth study. Clin Oral Investig. 2021 Sep;25(9):5493-5503. [PubMed]
14. Totiam P, Gonzalez-Cabezas C, Fontana MR, Zero DT. A new in vitro model to study the relationship of gap size and secondary caries. Caries Res. 2007;41(6):467-73. [PubMed]
15. Bernardo M, Luis H, Martin MD, Leroux BG, Rue T, Leitao J, et al. Survival and reasons for failure of amalgam versus composite posterior restorations placed in a randomized clinical trial. J Am Dent Assoc. 2007 Jun;138(6):775-83. [PubMed]
16. BaniHani A, Santamaría RM, Hu S, Maden M, Albadri S. Minimal intervention dentistry for managing carious lesions into dentine in primary teeth: an umbrella review. Eur Arch Paediatr Dent. 2021 Nov 16. [PubMed]
17. Kolker JL, Damiano PC, Jones MP, Dawson DV, Caplan DJ, Armstrong SR, et al. The timing of subsequent treatment for teeth restored with large amalgams and crowns: factors related to the need for subsequent treatment. J Dent Res. 2004 Nov;83(11):854-8. [PubMed]
18. Jokstad A, Mjör IA. Replacement reasons and service time of class-II amalgam restorations in relation to cavity design. Acta Odontol Scand. 1991 Apr;49(2):109-26. [PubMed]
19. Lucarotti PS, Holder RL, Burke FJ. Outcome of direct restorations placed within the general dental services in England and Wales (Part 1): variation by type of restoration and re-intervention. J Dent. 2005 Nov;33(10):805-15. [PubMed]
20. Wahl MJ, Schmitt MM, Overton DA, Gordon MK. Prevalence of cusp fractures in teeth restored with amalgam and with resin-based composite. J Am Dent Assoc. 2004 Aug;135(8):1127-32. [PubMed]
21. National Association of Pediatric Dentistry [Consensus on the Treatment of Caries in the Primary Teeth.] [in Bulgarian] 2013. [Internet]
22. Hickel R, Roulet JF, Bayne S, Heintze SD, Mjör IA, Peters M, et al. Recommendations for conducting controlled clinical studies of dental restorative materials. Science Committee Project 2/98—FDI World Dental Federation study design (Part I) and criteria for evaluation (Part II) of direct and indirect restorations including onlays and partial crowns. J Adhes Dent. 2007;9 Suppl 1:121-47. [PubMed]
23. Bjarnason S, Care R, Berzina S, Brinkmane A, Rence I, Mackevica I, et al. Caries experience in Latvian nursery school children. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol. 1995 Jun;23(3):138-41. [PubMed]
24. Metz I, Rothmaier K, Pitchika V, Crispin A, Hickel R, Garcia-Godoy F, et al. Risk factors for secondary caries in direct composite restorations in primary teeth. Int J Paediatr Dent. 2015 Nov;25(6):451-61. [PubMed]
25. Yengopal V, Mickenautsch S. Caries-preventive effect of resin-modified glass-ionomer cement (RM-GIC) versus composite resin: a quantitative systematic review. Eur Arch Paediatr Dent. 2011 Feb;12(1):5-14. [PubMed]
26. Bektas Donmez S, Uysal S, Dolgun A, Turgut MD. Clinical performance of aesthetic restorative materials in primary teeth according to the FDI criteria. Eur J Paediatr Dent. 2016 Sep;17(3):202-212. [PubMed]
27. Alves dos Santos MP, Luiz RR, Maia LC. Randomised trial of resin-based restorations in Class I and Class II beveled preparations in primary molars: 48-month results. J Dent. 2010 Jun;38(6):451-9. [PubMed]

Received: 04 February 2022
Published online: 13 September 2022

back to Online Journal