IADR Abstract Archives
Follow-up of Hall Technique randomised control trial teeth to exfoliation
Objectives: Few paediatric dental restorative trials follow up outcomes for more than 2 years leaving uncertainty for clinicians drawing long-term inferences to their patient populations.
This study aimed to establish success of HT compared to dentists’ CR over the lifetime of the teeth by following up original participants in the Tayside Hall Technique (HT) trial comparing HT to dentists’ conventional restorations (CR) (Innes et al. J Dent Res, 2011:90(12);1405-10). 45/132 pairs of teeth had reached an endpoint of extraction or successful exfoliation when the 5-year prospective trial ended.
Methods: Original study: Split-mouth randomised control trial in general practice. Dentists were contacted for participants’ follow-up data. (n=14). Subsequent treatments/outcomes (using original study outcomes) for study teeth were entered onto a proforma. Retrospective data were then added to the prospective data from the 5-year-point of the trial.
Results: 14/17 dentists had follow-up data on 51 participants. Final endpoints for both paired study teeth were established for an additional 42 participants, forming a complete paired tooth dataset of 87 participants (66%). End-point data was available for only one tooth in 9 participants. Endpoints were established for 183 individual teeth.
For post-five year study data repeat Major failures (abscess, irreversible pulpitis, vitality loss, unrestorable tooth) occurred in 2 CRs. 2 HT teeth experienced Major failures. The overall failure rate was 4/87(5%) for HT and 18/87(21%) for CR (p=0.0002; 95%CI 8.28 to 25.13). 2 CR experienced repeat Minor failures (reversible pulpitis, caries, restoration loss, wear, fracture). No further Minor failures were noted in HT. Overall Minor failure rates were 2/87(2%) for HT and 33/87(38%) for CR (p=<0.0000; 95%CI 25.16 to 46.07).
Conclusions: These findings confirm the Hall Technique outperformed dentists’ restorations with a very low failure rate over the teeth’s lifespan, comparing favourably with other restorative interventions for dentinal lesions in primary teeth.
This study aimed to establish success of HT compared to dentists’ CR over the lifetime of the teeth by following up original participants in the Tayside Hall Technique (HT) trial comparing HT to dentists’ conventional restorations (CR) (Innes et al. J Dent Res, 2011:90(12);1405-10). 45/132 pairs of teeth had reached an endpoint of extraction or successful exfoliation when the 5-year prospective trial ended.
Methods: Original study: Split-mouth randomised control trial in general practice. Dentists were contacted for participants’ follow-up data. (n=14). Subsequent treatments/outcomes (using original study outcomes) for study teeth were entered onto a proforma. Retrospective data were then added to the prospective data from the 5-year-point of the trial.
Results: 14/17 dentists had follow-up data on 51 participants. Final endpoints for both paired study teeth were established for an additional 42 participants, forming a complete paired tooth dataset of 87 participants (66%). End-point data was available for only one tooth in 9 participants. Endpoints were established for 183 individual teeth.
For post-five year study data repeat Major failures (abscess, irreversible pulpitis, vitality loss, unrestorable tooth) occurred in 2 CRs. 2 HT teeth experienced Major failures. The overall failure rate was 4/87(5%) for HT and 18/87(21%) for CR (p=0.0002; 95%CI 8.28 to 25.13). 2 CR experienced repeat Minor failures (reversible pulpitis, caries, restoration loss, wear, fracture). No further Minor failures were noted in HT. Overall Minor failure rates were 2/87(2%) for HT and 33/87(38%) for CR (p=<0.0000; 95%CI 25.16 to 46.07).
Conclusions: These findings confirm the Hall Technique outperformed dentists’ restorations with a very low failure rate over the teeth’s lifespan, comparing favourably with other restorative interventions for dentinal lesions in primary teeth.