Pages: 1-9

Abstract

This systematic review provides an update on the development and efficacy of direct restorative dental materials for root caries interventions from in vitro and clinical studies. PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science were searched using specific MeSH keywords. Full articles from September 2000 to October 2024 were collected. Additional articles were identified by reference retrieval and manual searching. Studies not related to restorative materials for root caries treatment, case reports, non-original articles, and/or articles not written in English were excluded. Bias risk assessment was performed for the clinical studies. Forty-two articles (eleven clinical studies and thirty-one in vitro studies) were included for analysis. Most in vitro studies indicated an excellent cariostatic effect of glass ionomer cement. Resin-modified glass ionomer restorations also presented reduced recurrent caries activity but had a lower efficacy than glass ionomer cement restorations. For composite resin restorations, the main material development strategies are to strengthen the tooth structure and integrate antimicrobial activity. The clinical studies offered limited data, so the most appropriate material for surface root caries treatment is still inconclusive. However, atraumatic restorative treatment (ART) is an alternative treatment for patients with limiting conditions. Further clinical studies are required to confirm the efficacy of bioactive materials.

Keywords: Root caries, Composite resin, Glass ionomer, Atraumatic restorative treatment, Resin-modified glass ionomer, Bioactive material

References

1. World Health Organization. Global health and aging. NIH Publication no. 11-7737. Geneva: WHO; 2011. Available from: https://www.who.int/ageing/publications/global_health.pdf
2. Ritter AV, Shugars DA, Bader JD. Root caries risk indicators: a systematic review of risk models. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol. 2010;38(5):383–97. doi:10.1111/j.1600-0528.2010.00551.x
3. Takahashi N, Nyvad B. Ecological hypothesis of dentin and root caries. Caries Res. 2016;50(4):422–31. doi:10.1159/000447309
4. Abou Neel EA, Aljabo A, Strange A, Ibrahim S, Coathup M, Young AM, et al. Demineralization-remineralization dynamics in teeth and bone. Int J Nanomedicine. 2016;11:4743–63. doi:10.2147/IJN.S107624
5. Zhang J, Sardana D, Wong MCM, Leung KCM, Lo ECM. Factors associated with dental root caries: a systematic review. JDR Clin Trans Res. 2020;5(1):13–29. doi:10.1177/2380084419849045
6. Mickenautsch S, Grossman E. Atraumatic restorative treatment (ART): factors affecting success. J Appl Oral Sci. 2006;14(Spec No):34–6. doi:10.1590/S1678-77572006000700008
7. Hara AT, Turssi CP, Ando M, González-Cabezas C, Zero DT, Rodrigues AL Jr, et al. Influence of fluoride-releasing restorative material on root dentine secondary caries in situ. Caries Res. 2006;40(5):435–9. doi:10.1159/000094290
8. Zan KW, Nakamura K, Hamba H, Sadr A, Nikaido T, Tagami J. Micro-computed tomography assessment of root dentin around fluoride-releasing restorations after demineralization/remineralization. Eur J Oral Sci. 2018;126(5):390–9. doi:10.1111/eos.12558
9. Sterne JAC, Savović J, Page MJ, Elbers RG, Blencowe NS, Boutron I, et al. RoB 2: a revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ. 2019;366:l4898. doi:10.1136/bmj.l4898
10. Sidhu SK, Nicholson JW. A review of glass-ionomer cements for clinical dentistry. J Funct Biomater. 2016;7(3):16. doi:10.3390/jfb7030016
11. McComb D, Erickson RL, Maxymiw WG, Wood RE. A clinical comparison of glass ionomer, resin-modified glass ionomer and resin composite restorations in the treatment of cervical caries in xerostomic head and neck radiation patients. Oper Dent. 2002;27(5):430–7.
12. Hu JY, Li YQ, Smales RJ, Yip KH. Restoration of teeth with more-viscous glass ionomer cements following radiation-induced caries. Int Dent J. 2002;52(6):445–8. doi:10.1111/j.1875-595X.2002.tb00640.x
13. De Moor RJG, Stassen IG, van‘t Veldt Y, Torbeyns D, Hommez GMG. Two-year clinical performance of glass ionomer and resin composite restorations in xerostomic head- and neck-irradiated cancer patients. Clin Oral Investig. 2011;15(1):31–8. doi:10.1007/s00784-009-0355-4
14. Lo ECM, Luo Y, Tan HP, Dyson JE, Corbet EF. ART and conventional root restorations in elders after 12 months. J Dent Res. 2006;85(10):929–32. doi:10.1177/154405910608501011
15. Cruz Gonzalez AC, Marín Zuluaga DJ. Clinical outcome of root caries restorations using ART and rotary techniques in institutionalized elders. Braz Oral Res. 2016;30:e63. doi:10.1590/1807-3107BOR-2016.vol30.0063
16. da Mata C, Allen PF, McKenna G, Cronin M, O’Mahony D, Woods N. Two-year survival of ART restorations placed in elderly patients: a randomised controlled clinical trial. J Dent. 2015;43(4):405–11. doi:10.1016/j.jdent.2015.01.003
17. Koc Vural U, Kerimova L, Kiremitci A. Clinical comparison of a micro-hybrid resin-based composite and resin modified glass ionomer in the treatment of cervical caries lesions: 36-month, split-mouth, randomized clinical trial. Odontology. 2021;109(2):376–84. doi:10.1007/s10266-020-00550-8
18. da Mata C, McKenna G, Anweigi L, Hayes M, Cronin M, Woods N, et al. An RCT of atraumatic restorative treatment for older adults: 5 year results. J Dent. 2019;83:95–9. doi:10.1016/j.jdent.2019.03.003