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...
Autores principales: | , , , |
---|---|
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 |