Cargando…

Does treating proximal cavities in primary molars non-restoratively affect intra-arch space and alignment of successor teeth negatively? A 4-year longitudinal study

BACKGROUND: Removing plaque with toothbrush and toothpaste from proximal cavities in primary molars without restoring them follows sound cariological principles. But does this treatment affect space for and alignment of their permanent successors negatively? HYPOTHESIS: There is no difference in imp...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Gomide, Rafael T., Frencken, Jo E., Faber, Jorge, Kuijpers-Jagtman, Anne Marie
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: PeerJ Inc. 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9536320/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36213499
http://dx.doi.org/10.7717/peerj.14008
_version_ 1784802962109890560
author Gomide, Rafael T.
Frencken, Jo E.
Faber, Jorge
Kuijpers-Jagtman, Anne Marie
author_facet Gomide, Rafael T.
Frencken, Jo E.
Faber, Jorge
Kuijpers-Jagtman, Anne Marie
author_sort Gomide, Rafael T.
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Removing plaque with toothbrush and toothpaste from proximal cavities in primary molars without restoring them follows sound cariological principles. But does this treatment affect space for and alignment of their permanent successors negatively? HYPOTHESIS: There is no difference in impaction and displacement of the premolars, as well as in the D+E space in quadrants with three different statuses of the proximal surface of primary molars over a 4-year period. METHODS: A total of 936 quadrants (466 maxillary and 470 mandibular quadrants) in 233 children were assessed. Treatment of cavities in the proximal surfaces of the primary molars consisted of amalgam and ART restorations using high-viscosity glass-ionomer cement, and cleaning of open large- and medium-sized cavities with toothbrush and toothpaste (UCT) under supervision for 220 days per year over 3 years. Dental casts were made at baseline, and after two, three, and 4 years. The D+E spaces were measured digitally. Status of the proximal surface of the primary molars was assessed by two calibrated examiners, and quadrants were grouped into normal anatomy, defective restoration, and proximal cavity. ANCOVA, ANOVA and LSD tests were applied. RESULTS: There was a statistically significant difference between groups (p <= 0.001) and between evaluation times (p < 0.001), for the D+E space in both the maxilla and mandible. A sex difference related to the D+E space in the maxilla was found (p = 0.007). For boys, quadrants in the maxilla of the group ‘proximal cavity’ showed a significant shorter D+E space when compared to quadrants of the group ‘normal anatomy’ at the 3- and 4-year evaluation time. For girls the difference between the two groups was only present at the 3-year evaluation time. There was no significant difference between the D+E space in quadrants with defective restorations and those with normal anatomy in the mandible and in the maxilla. Displacement and impaction of the premolars showed no significant difference between groups. CONCLUSION: Primary molars with open proximal cavities that are cleaned with toothbrush and toothpaste do not result in displacement and impaction of the successor teeth, neither do primary molars with defective restorations in proximal tooth surfaces.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9536320
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher PeerJ Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-95363202022-10-07 Does treating proximal cavities in primary molars non-restoratively affect intra-arch space and alignment of successor teeth negatively? A 4-year longitudinal study Gomide, Rafael T. Frencken, Jo E. Faber, Jorge Kuijpers-Jagtman, Anne Marie PeerJ Dentistry BACKGROUND: Removing plaque with toothbrush and toothpaste from proximal cavities in primary molars without restoring them follows sound cariological principles. But does this treatment affect space for and alignment of their permanent successors negatively? HYPOTHESIS: There is no difference in impaction and displacement of the premolars, as well as in the D+E space in quadrants with three different statuses of the proximal surface of primary molars over a 4-year period. METHODS: A total of 936 quadrants (466 maxillary and 470 mandibular quadrants) in 233 children were assessed. Treatment of cavities in the proximal surfaces of the primary molars consisted of amalgam and ART restorations using high-viscosity glass-ionomer cement, and cleaning of open large- and medium-sized cavities with toothbrush and toothpaste (UCT) under supervision for 220 days per year over 3 years. Dental casts were made at baseline, and after two, three, and 4 years. The D+E spaces were measured digitally. Status of the proximal surface of the primary molars was assessed by two calibrated examiners, and quadrants were grouped into normal anatomy, defective restoration, and proximal cavity. ANCOVA, ANOVA and LSD tests were applied. RESULTS: There was a statistically significant difference between groups (p <= 0.001) and between evaluation times (p < 0.001), for the D+E space in both the maxilla and mandible. A sex difference related to the D+E space in the maxilla was found (p = 0.007). For boys, quadrants in the maxilla of the group ‘proximal cavity’ showed a significant shorter D+E space when compared to quadrants of the group ‘normal anatomy’ at the 3- and 4-year evaluation time. For girls the difference between the two groups was only present at the 3-year evaluation time. There was no significant difference between the D+E space in quadrants with defective restorations and those with normal anatomy in the mandible and in the maxilla. Displacement and impaction of the premolars showed no significant difference between groups. CONCLUSION: Primary molars with open proximal cavities that are cleaned with toothbrush and toothpaste do not result in displacement and impaction of the successor teeth, neither do primary molars with defective restorations in proximal tooth surfaces. PeerJ Inc. 2022-10-03 /pmc/articles/PMC9536320/ /pubmed/36213499 http://dx.doi.org/10.7717/peerj.14008 Text en © 2022 Gomide et al. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, reproduction and adaptation in any medium and for any purpose provided that it is properly attributed. For attribution, the original author(s), title, publication source (PeerJ) and either DOI or URL of the article must be cited.
spellingShingle Dentistry
Gomide, Rafael T.
Frencken, Jo E.
Faber, Jorge
Kuijpers-Jagtman, Anne Marie
Does treating proximal cavities in primary molars non-restoratively affect intra-arch space and alignment of successor teeth negatively? A 4-year longitudinal study
title Does treating proximal cavities in primary molars non-restoratively affect intra-arch space and alignment of successor teeth negatively? A 4-year longitudinal study
title_full Does treating proximal cavities in primary molars non-restoratively affect intra-arch space and alignment of successor teeth negatively? A 4-year longitudinal study
title_fullStr Does treating proximal cavities in primary molars non-restoratively affect intra-arch space and alignment of successor teeth negatively? A 4-year longitudinal study
title_full_unstemmed Does treating proximal cavities in primary molars non-restoratively affect intra-arch space and alignment of successor teeth negatively? A 4-year longitudinal study
title_short Does treating proximal cavities in primary molars non-restoratively affect intra-arch space and alignment of successor teeth negatively? A 4-year longitudinal study
title_sort does treating proximal cavities in primary molars non-restoratively affect intra-arch space and alignment of successor teeth negatively? a 4-year longitudinal study
topic Dentistry
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9536320/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36213499
http://dx.doi.org/10.7717/peerj.14008
work_keys_str_mv AT gomiderafaelt doestreatingproximalcavitiesinprimarymolarsnonrestorativelyaffectintraarchspaceandalignmentofsuccessorteethnegativelya4yearlongitudinalstudy
AT frenckenjoe doestreatingproximalcavitiesinprimarymolarsnonrestorativelyaffectintraarchspaceandalignmentofsuccessorteethnegativelya4yearlongitudinalstudy
AT faberjorge doestreatingproximalcavitiesinprimarymolarsnonrestorativelyaffectintraarchspaceandalignmentofsuccessorteethnegativelya4yearlongitudinalstudy
AT kuijpersjagtmanannemarie doestreatingproximalcavitiesinprimarymolarsnonrestorativelyaffectintraarchspaceandalignmentofsuccessorteethnegativelya4yearlongitudinalstudy