Different treatment alternatives for the treatment of TEETH with molar incisor hypomineralization (MIH) in pediatric dentistry

Objective: Treatment of teeth with MIH is complex and difficult. Although there are various treatment options, there is no consensus on the most effective treatment method. The aim of our study is to determine the most effective procedure by comparing the materials and methods used in the treatment of MIH. Method: 189 first molars with MIH were restored with 4 different materials/methods. Equia Forte HT (GC, Tokyo, Japan) was used in Group 1; In Group 2, G-eanial composite (GC, Tokyo, Japan) was used with a Fuji IX (GC, Tokyo, Japan) base; In Group 3 and Group 4, EverX Posterior (GC, Tokyo, Japan) base and G-eanial composite (GC, Tokyo, Japan) were used. In group 4, deproteinization was performed with Papacarie Duo gel (F&A, Sao Paulo, Brazil). The clinical success of restorations at three/six/nine month periods was evaluated using Modified USPHS criteria. Results: After 9 months of follow-up, a total of 9 restorations failed: Three are due to pulpal causes, 5 to loss of retention, and 1 to secondary caries. When the marginal adaptation is evaluated; there was no statistically significant difference for the four groups at the 3rd month controls (p>0,05). Group 2 at the 6th and 9th month controls; it was found to be significantly different from Groups 3 and 4 (p<0,05). When the surface texture is evaluated; Group 1 was statistically different from all other groups in all control months (p<0,05). There was no significant difference between the groups in terms of retention, color match, marginal discoloration and secondary caries in all control months (p>0,05). Conclusion: Restoration of MIH with Equia Forte HT is almost as successful as composites. The use of dentin replacement materials instead of glass ionomer cements as a base in composite restorations shows better results. Papacarie deproteinization showed similar success with other composite groups.