Title
Author
DOI
Article Type
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Article Menu
Export Article
More by Authors Links
Article Data
- Views 1017
- Dowloads 271
Original Research
Open AccessClinical Evaluation of Restorative Materials in Primary Teeth Class
II Lesions
Clinical Evaluation of Restorative Materials in Primary Teeth Class II Lesions
1Department of Pedodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Ataturk University, Erzurum, Turkey.
*Corresponding Author(s): Sengul F E-mail: fatihs@gmail.com
Abstract
The aim of this study was to evaluate clinical success of primary teeth class II lesions restored with different restorative materials [Hybrid Composite Resin (HCR), Resin Modified Glass Ionomer Cement (RMGIC), compomer, and Giomer Composite Resin (GCR)] followed up for 24 months. Study Design: This study was carried out on 146 primary molars of 41 children in the age range of 5-7 years. The class II lesions in primary molars of a patient were restored using different restorative materials. Restorations were evaluated according to FDI-criteria and their survival rates were determined. Data were analysed with Pearson chi-square, Kaplan-Meier and Wilcoxon (Breslow) tests (α = 0.05). Results: The failure rates of restorative materials were as follows: compomer 33.3%, RMGIC 28.1%, HCR 22.5% and GCR 21.1%. Conclusions: While the functional failure was the most important factor in restorative material failure, RMGIC was the most successful material in terms of biological evaluation criterion and GCR had the longest survival rate.
Keywords
primary teeth, dental restoration failure, prospective study
Cite and Share
Sengul F, Gurbuz T. Clinical Evaluation of Restorative Materials in Primary Teeth Class II Lesions. Journal of Clinical Pediatric Dentistry. 2015. 39(4);315-321.
References
1. Pinkham JR. Pediatric dentistry: infancy through adolescence. 4th Ed. Elsevier Saunders, St. Louis, Mosby; 341-374, 2005.
2. Kramer N, Lohbauer U, Frankenberger R. Restorative materials in the primary dentition of poli-caries patients. Eur Arch Paediatr Dent, 8: 29-35, 2007.
3. Manhart J, Chen H, Hamm G, Hickel R. Buonocore Memorial Lecture. Review of the clinical survival of direct and indirect restorations in posterior teeth of the permanent dentition. Oper Dent, 29: 481-508, 2004.
4. Craig RG, Powers JM, Wataha JC. Dental materials: properties and manipulation. 7th Ed. Mosby, St. Louis; 57-78, 2000.
5. Gordan VV, Mondragon E, Watson RE, Garvan C, Mjör IA. A clinical evaluation of a self-etching primer and a giomer restorative material: results at eight years. J Am Dent Assoc, 138: 621-627, 2007.
6. Itota T, Carrick TE, Yoshiyama M, McCabe JF. Fluoride release and recharge in giomer, compomer and resin composite. Dent Mater, 20: 789-795, 2004.
7. Naoum S, Ellakwa A, Martin F, Swain M. Fluoride release, recharge and mechanical property stability of various fluoride-containing resin composites. Oper Dent, 36: 422-432, 2011.
8. Okuyama K, Murata Y, Pereira PN, Miguez PA, Komatsu H, Sano H. Fluoride release and uptake by various dental materials after fluoride application. Am J Dent, 19: 123-127, 2006.
9. Mjör IA, Dahl JE, Moorhead JE. Placement and replacement of restorations in primary teeth. Acta Odontol Scand, 60: 25-28, 2002.
10. Barr-Agholme M, Oden A, Dahllof G, Modeer T. A two-year clinical study of light-cured composite and amalgam restorations in primary molars. Dent Mater, 7: 230-233, 1991.
11. Marks LA, Weerheijm KL, van Amerongen WE, Groen HJ, Martens LC. Dyract versus Tytin Class II restorations in primary molars: 36 months evaluation. Caries Res, 33: 387-392, 1999.
12. Pascon FM, Kantovitz KR, Caldo-Teixeira AS, et al. Clinical evaluation of composite and compomer restorations in primary teeth: 24-month results. J Dent, 34: 381-388, 2006.
13. Mousavinasab SM, Meyers I. Fluoride release by glass ionomer cements, compomer and giomer. Dent Res J (Isfahan), 6: 75-81, 2009.
14. Frankl L, Hellman I. Symposium on child analysis. The ego’s participation in the therapeutic alliance. Int J Psychoanal, 43: 333-337, 1962.
15. Suwatviroj P, Messer LB, Palamara JE. The effects of cavity preparation and lamination on bond strength and fracture of tooth-colored restorations in primary molars. Pediatr Dent, 25: 534-540, 2003.
16. Kidd EA, Ricketts DN, Beighton D. Criteria for caries removal at the enamel-dentine junction: a clinical and microbiological study. Br Dent J, 180: 287-291, 1996.
17. Hickel R, Roulet JF, Bayne S, et al. Recommendations for conducting controlled clinical studies of dental restorative materials. Clin Oral Investig, 11: 5-33, 2007.
18. Shwartz M, Gröndahl HG, Pliskin J, Boffa J. A longitudinal analysis from bite-wing radiographs of the rate of progression of approximal carious lesions through human dental enamel. Archives of oral biology, 29: 529-536, 1984.
19. McComb D. Systematic review of conservative operative caries management strategies. J Dent Educ, 65: 1154-1161, 2001.
20. Qvist V, Laurberg L, Poulsen A, Teglers PT. Class II restorations in primary teeth: 7-year study on three resin-modified glass ionomer cements and a compomer. Eur J Oral Sci, 112: 188-196, 2004.
21. Espelid I, Tveit AB, Tornes KH, Alvheim H. Clinical behaviour of glass ionomer restorations in primary teeth. J Dent, 27: 437-442, 1999.
22. Mass E, Gordon M, Fuks AB. Assessment of compomer proximal restorations in primary molars: a retrospective study in children. ASDC J Dent Child, 66: 93-97, 84, 1999.
23. Lien W, Vandewalle KS. Physical properties of a new silorane-based restorative system. Dent Mater, 26: 337-344, 2010.
24. Holland IS, Walls AW, Wallwork MA, Murray JJ. The longevity of amalgam restorations in deciduous molars. Br Dent J, 161: 255-258, 1986.
25. Tran LA, Messer LB. Clinicians’ choices of restorative materials for children. Aust Dent J, 48: 221-232, 2003.
26. Hayashi M, Wilson NH, Watts DC. Quality of marginal adaptation evaluation of posterior composites in clinical trials. J Dent Res, 82: 59-63, 2003.
27. Tonn EM, Ryge G. Clinical evaluations of composite resin restorations in primary molars: a 4-year follow-up study. J Am Dent Assoc, 117: 603-606, 1988.
28. Hse KM, Wei SH. Clinical evaluation of compomer in primary teeth: 1-year results. J Am Dent Assoc, 128: 1088-1096, 1997.
29. Kavvadia K, Kakaboura A, Vanderas AP, Papagiannoulis L. Clinical evaluation of a compomer and an amalgam primary teeth class II restorations: a 2-year comparative study. Pediatr Dent, 26: 245-250, 2004.
30. Qvist V, Thylstrup A, Mjör IA. Restorative treatment pattern and longevity of amalgam restorations in Denmark. Acta Odontol Scand, 44: 343-349, 1986.
31. van Dijken JW, Pallesen U. Fracture frequency and longevity of fractured resin composite, polyacid-modified resin composite, and resin-modified glass ionomer cement class IV restorations: an up to 14 years of follow-up. Clin Oral Investig, 14: 217-222, 2010.
32. Bartlett D, Sundaram G. An up to 3-year randomized clinical study comparing indirect and direct resin composites used to restore worn posterior teeth. Int J Prosthodont, 19: 613-617, 2006.
33. Andersson-Wenckert IE, Folkesson UH, van Dijken JW. Durability of a polyacid-modified composite resin (compomer) in primary molars. A multicenter study. Acta Odontol Scand, 55: 255-260, 1997.
34. Soncini JA, Maserejian NN, Trachtenberg F, Tavares M, Hayes C. The longevity of amalgam versus compomer/composite restorations in posterior primary and permanent teeth: findings From the New England Children’s Amalgam Trial. J Am Dent Assoc, 138: 763-772, 2007.
35. Wilson NH, Gordan VV, Brunton PA, Wilson MA, Crisp RJ, Mjor IA. Two-centre evaluation of a resin composite/ self-etching restorative system: three-year findings. J Adhes Dent, 8: 47-51, 2006.
36. Roberson TM, Heymann H, Swift EJ, Sturdevant CM. Sturdevant’s art & science of operative dentistry. 4th Ed. Mosby, St. Louis; 133-233, 2002.
37. Perdigao J, Geraldeli S, Hodges JS. Total-etch versus self-etch adhesive: effect on postoperative sensitivity. J Am Dent Assoc, 134: 1621-1629, 2003.
38. Croll TP, Bar-Zion Y, Segura A, Donly KJ. Clinical performance of resin-modified glass ionomer cement restorations in primary teeth. A retrospective evaluation. J Am Dent Assoc, 132: 1110-1116, 2001.
39. Duggal MS, Toumba KJ, Sharma NK. Clinical performance of a compomer and amalgam for the interproximal restoration of primary molars: a 24-month evaluation. Br Dent J, 193: 339-342, 2002.
40. Paterson FM, Paterson RC, Watts A, Blinkhorn AS. Initial stages in the development of valid criteria for the replacement of amalgam restorations. J Dent, 23: 137-143, 1995.
41. Pereira PN, Inokoshi S, Yamada T, Tagami J. Microhardness of in vitro caries inhibition zone adjacent to conventional and resin-modified glass ionomer cements. Dent Mater, 14: 179-185, 1998.
42. Papathanasiou AG, Curzon ME, Fairpo CG. The influence of restorative material on the survival rate of restorations in primary molars. Pediatr Dent, 16: 282-288, 1994.
Abstracted / indexed in
Science Citation Index Expanded (SciSearch) Created as SCI in 1964, Science Citation Index Expanded now indexes over 9,500 of the world’s most impactful journals across 178 scientific disciplines. More than 53 million records and 1.18 billion cited references date back from 1900 to present.
Biological Abstracts Easily discover critical journal coverage of the life sciences with Biological Abstracts, produced by the Web of Science Group, with topics ranging from botany to microbiology to pharmacology. Including BIOSIS indexing and MeSH terms, specialized indexing in Biological Abstracts helps you to discover more accurate, context-sensitive results.
Google Scholar Google Scholar is a freely accessible web search engine that indexes the full text or metadata of scholarly literature across an array of publishing formats and disciplines.
JournalSeek Genamics JournalSeek is the largest completely categorized database of freely available journal information available on the internet. The database presently contains 39226 titles. Journal information includes the description (aims and scope), journal abbreviation, journal homepage link, subject category and ISSN.
Current Contents - Clinical Medicine Current Contents - Clinical Medicine provides easy access to complete tables of contents, abstracts, bibliographic information and all other significant items in recently published issues from over 1,000 leading journals in clinical medicine.
BIOSIS Previews BIOSIS Previews is an English-language, bibliographic database service, with abstracts and citation indexing. It is part of Clarivate Analytics Web of Science suite. BIOSIS Previews indexes data from 1926 to the present.
Journal Citation Reports/Science Edition Journal Citation Reports/Science Edition aims to evaluate a journal’s value from multiple perspectives including the journal impact factor, descriptive data about a journal’s open access content as well as contributing authors, and provide readers a transparent and publisher-neutral data & statistics information about the journal.
Scopus: CiteScore 2.0 (2022) Scopus is Elsevier's abstract and citation database launched in 2004. Scopus covers nearly 36,377 titles (22,794 active titles and 13,583 Inactive titles) from approximately 11,678 publishers, of which 34,346 are peer-reviewed journals in top-level subject fields: life sciences, social sciences, physical sciences and health sciences.
Submission Turnaround Time
Conferences
Top