Browsing by Author "Hickel, Reinhard"

Now showing 1 - 4 of 4
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Alternative Direct Restorative Materials for Dental Amalgam: A Concise Review Based on an FDI Policy Statement
    (Elsevier, 2024) Schmalz, Gottfried; Schwendicke, Falk; Hickel, Reinhard; Platt, Jeffrey A.; Biomedical and Applied Sciences, School of Dentistry
    Dental restorative procedures remain a cornerstone of dental practice, and for many decades, dental amalgam was the most frequently employed material. However, its use is declining, mainly driven by its poor aesthetics and by the development of tooth-coloured adhesive materials. Furthermore, the Minamata Convention agreed on a phase-down on the use of dental amalgam. This concise review is based on a FDI Policy Statement which provides guidance on the selection of direct restorative materials as alternatives to amalgam. The Policy Statement was informed by current literature, identified mainly from PubMed and the internet. Ultimately, dental, oral, and patient factors should be considered when choosing the best material for each individual case. Dental factors include the dentition, tooth type, and cavity class and extension; oral aspects comprise caries risk profiles and related risk factors; and patient-related aspects include systemic risks/medical conditions such as allergies towards certain materials as well as compliance. Special protective measures (eg, a no-touch technique, blue light protection) are required when handling resin-based materials, and copious water spray is recommended when adjusting or removing restorative materials. Cost and reimbursement policies may need to be considered when amalgam alternatives are used, and the material recommendation requires the informed consent of the patient. There is no single material which can replace amalgam in all applications; different materials are needed for different situations. The policy statement recommends using a patient-centred rather than purely a material-centred approach. Further research is needed to improve overall material properties, the clinical performance, the impact on the environment, and cost-effectiveness of all alternative materials.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Bioactivity of Dental Restorative Materials: FDI Policy Statement
    (Elsevier, 2023) Schmalz, Gottfried; Hickel, Reinhard; Price, Richard Bengt; Platt, Jeffrey A.; Biomedical Sciences and Comprehensive Care, School of Dentistry
    The term bioactivity is being increasingly used in medicine and dentistry. Due to its positive connotation, it is frequently utilised for advertising dental restorative materials. However, there is confusion about what the term means, and concerns have been raised about its potential overuse. Therefore, FDI decided to publish a Policy Statement about the bioactivity of dental restorative materials to clarify the term and provide some caveats for its use in advertising. Background information for this Policy Statement was taken from the current literature, mainly from the PubMed database and the internet. Bioactive restorative materials should have beneficial/desired effects. These effects should be local, intended, and nontoxic and should not interfere with a material's principal purpose, namely dental tissue replacement. Three mechanisms for the bioactivity of such materials have been identified: purely biological, mixed biological/chemical, or strictly chemical. Therefore, when the term bioactivity is used in an advertisement or in a description of a dental restorative material, scientific evidence (in vitro or in situ, and preferably in clinical studies) should be provided describing the mechanism of action, the duration of the effect (especially for materials releasing antibacterial substances), and the lack of significant adverse biological side effects (including the development and spread of antimicrobial resistance). Finally, it should be documented that the prime purpose, for instance, to be used to rebuild the form and function of lost tooth substance or lost teeth, is not impaired, as demonstrated by data from in vitro and clinical studies. The use of the term bioactive dental restorative material in material advertisement/information should be restricted to materials that fulfil all the requirements as described in the FDI Policy Statement.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    How to intervene in the caries process in adults: proximal and secondary caries? An EFCD-ORCA-DGZ expert Delphi consensus statement
    (Springer, 2020) Schwendicke, Falk; Splieth, Christian H.; Bottenberg, Peter; Breschi, Lorenzo; Campus, Guglielmo; Doméjean, Sophie; Ekstrand, Kim; Giacaman, Rodrigo A.; Haak, Rainer; Hannig, Matthias; Hickel, Reinhard; Juric, Hrvoje; Lussi, Adrian; Machiulskiene, Vita; Manton, David; Jablonski-Momeni, Anahita; Opdam, Niek; Paris, Sebastian; Santamaria, Ruth; Tassery, Hervé; Zandona, Andrea; Zero, Domenick; Zimmer, Stefan; Banerjee, Avijit; Cariology, Operative Dentistry and Dental Public Health, School of Dentistry
    Objectives To provide consensus recommendations on how to intervene in the caries process in adults, specifically proximal and secondary carious lesions. Methods Based on two systematic reviews, a consensus conference and followed by an e-Delphi consensus process were held with EFCD/ORCA/DGZ delegates. Results Managing an individual’s caries risk using non-invasive means (oral hygiene measures including flossing/interdental brushes, fluoride application) is recommended, as both proximal and secondary carious lesions may be prevented or their activity reduced. For proximal lesions, only cavitated lesions (confirmed by visual-tactile, or radiographically extending into the middle/inner dentine third) should be treated invasively/restoratively. Non-cavitated lesions may be successfully arrested using non-invasive measures in low-risk individuals or if radiographically confined to the enamel. In high-risk individuals or if radiographically extended into dentine, for these lesions, additional micro-invasive (lesion sealing and infiltration) treatment should be considered. For restoring proximal lesions, adhesive direct restorations allow minimally invasive, tooth-preserving preparations. Amalgams come with a lower risk of secondary lesions and may be preferable in more clinically complex scenarios, dependent on specific national guidelines. In structurally compromised (especially endodontically treated) teeth, indirect cuspal coverage restorations may be indicated. Detection methods for secondary lesions should be tailored according to the individual’s caries risk. Avoiding false positive detection and over-treatment is a priority. Bitewing radiographs should be combined with visual-tactile assessment to confirm secondary caries detections. Review/refurbishing/resealing/repairing instead of replacing partially defective restorations should be considered for managing secondary caries, if possible. Conclusions An individualized and lesion-specific approach is recommended for intervening in the caries process in adults.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    How to Intervene in the Caries Process in Older Adults: A Joint ORCA and EFCD Expert Delphi Consensus Statement
    (Karger, 2020) Paris, Sebastian; Banerjee, Avijit; Bottenberg, Peter; Breschi, Lorenzo; Campus, Guglielmo; Doméjean, Sophie; Ekstrand, Kim; Giacaman, Rodrigo A.; Haak, Rainer; Hannig, Matthias; Hickel, Reinhard; Juric, Hrvoje; Lussi, Adrian; Machiulskiene, Vita; Manton, David; Jablonski-Momeni, Anahita; Santamaria, Ruth; Schwendicke, Falk; Splieth, Christian H.; Tassery, Hervé; Zandona, Andrea; Zero, Domenick; Zimmer, Stefan; Opdam, Niek; Cariology, Operative Dentistry and Dental Public Health, School of Dentistry
    Aim: To provide recommendations for dental clinicians for the management of dental caries in older adults with special emphasis on root caries lesions. Methods: A consensus workshop followed by a Delphi consensus process were conducted with an expert panel nominated by ORCA, EFCD, and DGZ boards. Based on a systematic review of the literature, as well as non-systematic literature search, recommendations for clinicians were developed and consented in a two-stage Delphi process. Results: Demographic and epidemiologic changes will significantly increase the need of management of older adults and root caries in the future. Ageing is associated with a decline of intrinsic capacities and an increased risk of general diseases. As oral and systemic health are linked, bidirectional consequences of diseases and interventions need to be considered. Caries prevention and treatment in older adults must respond to the patient’s individual abilities for self-care and cooperation and often involves the support of caregivers. Systemic interventions may involve dietary counselling, oral hygiene instruction, the use of fluoridated toothpastes, and the stimulation of salivary flow. Local interventions to manage root lesions may comprise local biofilm control, application of highly fluoridated toothpastes or varnishes as well as antimicrobial agents. Restorative treatment is often compromised by the accessibility of such root caries lesions as well as the ability of the senior patient to cooperate. If optimum restorative treatment is impossible or inappropriate, long-term stabilization, e.g., by using glass-ionomer cements, and palliative treatments that aim to maintain oral function as long and as well as possible may be the treatment of choice for the individual.