Liutikov O.

DENTISTRY

Scentific article

A common method of operation field isolation in restorative dentistry is the use of cotton rolls with saliva ejector. This technique is widely available and low cost, but has the disadvantage in replace sodden cotton rolls frequently during the procedure. An alternative variant is a rubber dam which can protect the tooth from moister, intraoral bacteria and saliva. Nowadays, there aren’t convincing evidence in superiority of rubber dam usage during restoration procedures especially in pediatric dentistry. Aim: the aim of this prospective randomized trial was to evaluate the influence of two methods of operation field isolation on the success of restorations in primary molars after pulpotomy. Object and methods: 64 children aged 4-7 y.o. was included in this prospective randomized trial. Vital pulpotomy and restoration with resin composite (Filtek Ultimate (3M)) and one step etch&rince adhesive (Single Bond Universal (3M)) was performed in 106 primary molars with Class II defects. All teeth was randomly divided in to two groups according to isolation protocol: group 1 – rubber dam (RD); group 2 – cotton rolls (CR). Clinical evaluation was performed at 3, 6 and 12 months with USPHS criteria; X-ray at 12 months. During each procedure time needed for treatment was marked. Data were analyzed with IBM SPSS Statistics 20.0.0 (SPSS Inc.), using Wilcoxon signedrank test (α = 0.05). Results. After 12 months 99 restorations in 59 children were evaluated. No marginal discoloration or marginal gaps were in 96,08% and 90,02% in group 1 (RD) and in 89,58% and 87,5% in group 2 (CR) respectively. There was no significant differences between two methods of operation field isolation in restorations success at 12-months follow-up (p>0,05). The time needed to finish the treatment was 14% less when using rubber dam (р < 0.05). Conclusion. According to results of this study using of rubber dam during primary molars restoration after pulpotomy didn’t increase success of restorations compare to cotton rolls method of isolation at 12 months follow-up. This doesn’t mean that that using rubber dam in not important in pediatric dentistry due to numerous advantages. Rubber dam can reduce time needed for procedure. Additional long-term prospective trials with larger groups are needed for definitive conclusions.

primary molars, pulpotomy, resin composite, rubber dam, operation field isolation

• AAPD Guideline on Pulp Therapy for Primary and Immature Permanent Teeth. – Reference manual. – 2014. – Vol. 37. – № 6. – Р. 244-252.
• Ahmed H.M. Rubber dam application in endodontic practice: an update on critical educational and ethical dilemmas / H.M. Ahmed, S. Cohen, G. Lévy, L. Steier, F. Bukiet // Aust Dent J. – 2014. – Vol. 59 (4). – P. 457-463.
• American Association of Endodontists Clinical Guideline Clinical and Biological Implications in Endodontic Success. – 2002.
• Ammann P. Influence of rubber dam on objective and subjective parameters of stress during dental treatment of children and adolescents – a randomized controlled clinical pilot study / P. Ammann, A. Kolb, A. Lussi, R. Seemann // Int J Paediatr Dent. – 2013. – Vol. 23 (2). – P. 110-115.
• Cajazeira M.R. Influence of the operatory field isolation technique on tooth-colored direct dental restorations / M.R. Cajazeira, T.M. De Sabóia, L.C. Maia // Am J Dent. – 2014. – Vol. 27 (3). – P. 155-159.
• Carvalho T.S. Two years survival rate of Class II ART restorations in primary molars using two ways to avoid saliva contamination / T.S. Carvalho, F.C. Sampaio, A. Diniz, M. Bönecker, W.E. Van Amerongen // Int J Paediatr Dent. – 2010. – Vol. 20 (6). – P. 419-425.
• Hickel R. Recommendations for conducting controlled clinical studies of dental restorative materials / R. Hickel, J.F. Roulet, S. Bayne, S.D. Heintze, I.A. Mjör, M. Peters, V. Rousson, R. Randall, G. Schmalz, M. Tyas, G. Vanherle // Clin Oral Investig. – 2007. – Vol. 11 (1). – Vol. 5-33.
• Hunter M.L. Vital pulpotomy in the primary dentition: attitudes and practices of Specialists in Paediatric Dentistry practising in the United Kingdom / M.L. Hunter, B. Hunter // Int J Paediatr Dent. – 2003. – Vol. 13 (4). – P. 246-250.
• Karaouzas L. Rubber dam isolation in pediatric patients: a review / L. Karaouzas, Y.E. Kim, J.R. Jr. Boynton // J Mich Dent Assoc. – 2012. – Vol. 94 (1). – P. 34-37.
• Kemoli A.M. Short communication: Influence of different isolation methods on the survival of proximal ART restorations in primary molars after two years / A.M. Kemoli, W.E. van Amerongen, G.N. Opinya // Eur Arch Paediatr Dent. – 2010 – Vol. 11 (3). – P. 136-139.
• Llewelyn D.R. UK National Clinical Guidelines in Paediatric Dentistry. The pulp treatment of the primary dentition / D.R. Llewelyn // Int J Paediatr Dent. – 2000. – Vol. 10 (3). – P. 248-252.
• Schorer-Jensma M.A. A comparison of paediatric dentists’ and general dental practitioners’ care patterns in paediatric dentalcare / M.A. Schorer-Jensma, J.S. Veerkamp // Eur Arch Paediatr Dent. – 2010. – Vol. 11 (2). – P. 93-96.
• Soldani F. An assessment of rubber dam usage amongst specialists in paediatric dentistry practising within the UK / F. Soldani, J. Foley // Int J Paediatr Dent. – 2007. – Vol. 17 (1). – P. 50-56.
• Wang Y. Rubber dam isolation for restorative treatment in dental patients / Y. Wang, C. Li, H. Yuan, M.C. Wong, J. Zou, Z. Shi, X. Zhou // Cochrane Database Syst Rev. – 2016. – Vol. 20. – Issue 9.

«Bulletin of problems biology and medicine» Issue 4 Part 3 (141), 2017 year, 353-356 pages, index UDK 616.314.9-08

10.29254/2077–4214–2017–4–3–141–353-356