European archives of paediatric dentistry : official journal of the European Academy of Paediatric Dentistry · 2026
Resin-based sealing vs resin-modified glass-ionomer filling for treatment of occlusal cavitated dentine caries lesions in primary molars - a multi-center randomized controlled split-mouth 3-year follow-up clinical trial.
СтатьяРандомизированное исследованиеМногоцентровое исследованиеСравнительное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Bågesund Mats, Olson Ann-Christine, Chizarie Sharre, Omanovic Maja, Zuber Anna, Hultquist Ann Ingemansson
Аннотация
PURPOSE: To evaluate if covering occlusal cavitated dentine caries lesions with limited extension (no more than one third of the bucco-lingual or disto-mesial width of the occlusal surface) in primary molars with resin-based sealing (RBS)-without previous removal of caries-would result in a lower 3-year rate of success than if all caries was removed and the cavity was filled with a resin-modified glass-ionomer cement (RMGIC), and to assess if the experience of the two treatments differed according to evaluation performed by the children and the dentists.
METHODS: RBS and RMGIC treatments of occlusal cavitated dentine caries lesions with limited extension in primary molars were evaluated as "defective" or "defect-free" after 3, 6, 12, 24, and 36 months in a split-mouth-study of 66 children (30girls, 36 boys) aged 4.77 ± 1.27 years. The children ranked their own experience (C-Face) for each treatment on a 7-grade face-scale, and the dentists evaluated the child's experience (D-C-exp), cooperation (D-coop) on a four-grade scale as either 'very bad', 'quite bad', 'quite good', or 'very good'.
RESULTS: After three years 71.2% of RBS and 84.8% of RMGIC were defect-free (p = 0.093). D-C-exp was better for RBS (1.27 ± 0.51) than for RMGIC (1.53 ± 0.81) (p = 0.005), while no significant difference regarding C-Face or D-Coop was found between the two methods.
CONCLUSION: RBS method for treatment of occlusal cavitated dentine caries lesions with limited extension (no more than one third of the bucco-lingual or disto-mesial width of the occlusal surface) in primary molars did not have a significantly lower rate of success, and was preferred by the patients, as compared to the conventional RMGIC method, according to the dentists' evaluation of patient experience.
CLINICALTRIALS: gov Identifier: NCT05475145.
METHODS: RBS and RMGIC treatments of occlusal cavitated dentine caries lesions with limited extension in primary molars were evaluated as "defective" or "defect-free" after 3, 6, 12, 24, and 36 months in a split-mouth-study of 66 children (30girls, 36 boys) aged 4.77 ± 1.27 years. The children ranked their own experience (C-Face) for each treatment on a 7-grade face-scale, and the dentists evaluated the child's experience (D-C-exp), cooperation (D-coop) on a four-grade scale as either 'very bad', 'quite bad', 'quite good', or 'very good'.
RESULTS: After three years 71.2% of RBS and 84.8% of RMGIC were defect-free (p = 0.093). D-C-exp was better for RBS (1.27 ± 0.51) than for RMGIC (1.53 ± 0.81) (p = 0.005), while no significant difference regarding C-Face or D-Coop was found between the two methods.
CONCLUSION: RBS method for treatment of occlusal cavitated dentine caries lesions with limited extension (no more than one third of the bucco-lingual or disto-mesial width of the occlusal surface) in primary molars did not have a significantly lower rate of success, and was preferred by the patients, as compared to the conventional RMGIC method, according to the dentists' evaluation of patient experience.
CLINICALTRIALS: gov Identifier: NCT05475145.