Related Experiment Video
Updated: Aug 26, 2025
Author Spotlight: 3D Movement Assessment of Maxillary Posterior Teeth in Clear Aligner Treatment
Published on: February 23, 2024
Does treating proximal cavities in primary molars non-restoratively affect intra-arch space and alignment of
Rafael T Gomide1, Jo E Frencken2, Jorge Faber3
1Department of Pediatric Dentistry, Universidade de Brasília, Brasília, Distrito Federal, Brazil.
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.
