Clinical Performance of Indirect Composite Onlays as Esthetic Alternative to Stainless Steel Crowns for Rehabilitation of a Large Carious Primary Molar

Objective: The aim of the present study was to evaluate the clinical performance of indirect resin composite onlays (IRC onlay) compared to stainless steel crowns (SSCs), as an esthetic alternative for rehabilitation of extensively carious primary molars. Study design: Fifty pediatric patients each received either IRC onlay or SSC randomly on extensively carious endodontically treated primary molars. All the restorations were evaluated at baseline and then every 6 months till 36 months using ‘modified FDI criteria’ for retention, marginal integrity, occlusion, proximal contact, secondary caries and gingival health. The dental chair side treatment time and post-operative acceptability were also evaluated for both the groups. Results: The cumulative survival rate of IRC onlays was 82.9% compared to 90.7% for SSCs over a time period of 36 months. The difference between the two study groups at various time intervals in terms of retention, marginal integrity, secondary caries, proximal contact, occlusion and gingival health was not statistically significant (p>0.05). The IRC onlays required significantly less mean chair side treatment time and were preferred the most by parents and children as per VAS scores compared to SSCs. Conclusion: IRC onlays are an acceptable esthetic alternative to SSCs and may be considered for use in aesthetically conscious children/ parents as per their preference

Indirect resin composite onlays; Stainless steel crowns; Extensively Carious primary molars; Aesthetic Restorations

1. Randall RC. Preformed metal crowns for primary and permanent molar teeth: review of the literature. Pediatr Dent.;24(5):489-500. 2002.

2. Kindelan SA, Day P, Nichol R, Willmott N, Fayle SA. UK national clinical guidelines in Pediatric Dentistry: Stainless steel preformed crowns for primary molars. Int J Paediatr Dent.;18(suppl.1):20-8. 2008.

3. Seale NS. The use of Stainless steel crowns. Pediatr Dent.;24:501-05. 2002.

4. Croll TP, Riesenberger RE. Primary molar stainless steel crown restoration. Quintessence Int.;17:221-26. 1986.

5. Bell SJ, Morgan AG, Marshman Z, Rodd HD. Child and parental acceptance of preformed metal crowns. Eur Arch Paediatr Dent.;11(5):218-24. 2010.

6. Atieh M. Stainless steel crown versus modified open-sandwich restorations for primary molars: a 2-year randomized clinical trial. Int J Paediatr Dent.;18(5):325-32. 2008.

7. Ram D, Peretz B. Composite crown form crowns for severely decayed primary molars: a technique for restoring function and esthetics. J Clin Pediatr Dent.;24(4):257-60. 2000.

8. Zimmerman JA, Feigal RJ, Till MJ, Hodges JS. Parental attitudes on restorative materials as factors influencing current use in pediatric dentistry. Pediatr Dent.;31(1):63-70. 2009.

9. Fishman R, Guelmann M, Bimstein E. Children’s selection of posterior restorative materials. J Clin Pediatr Dent.;31(1):1-4. 2006.

10. Peretz B, Ram D. Restorative material for children’s teeth: preferences of parents and children. ASDC J Dent Child. ;69(3):243-48. 2002.

11. Roberts JF. The open-faced stainless steel crown for primary molars. ASDC J Dent Child.;50(4):262-63. 1983.

12. Ram D, Fuks AB, Eidelman E. Long-term clinical performance of aesthetic primary molar crowns. Pediatr Dent.;25(6):582-84. 2003.

13. Touati B, Aidan N. Second generation laboratory composite resins for indirect restorations. J Esthet Dent. 1997;9(3):108-18.

14. Terry DA, Leinfelder KF, Maragos C. Developing form, function, and natural aesthetics with laboratory-processed composite resin--part II. Pract Proced Aesthet Dent.;17(7):449-54. 2005.

15. el-Mowafy O. Management of extensive carious lesions in permanent molars of a child with nonmetallic bonded restorations-a case report. J Can Dent Assoc.;66(6):302-7. 2000.

16. Vitkov L, Hannig M, Krautgartner W.D. Restorative therapy of primary teeth severely affected by Amelogenesis Imperfecta. Quintessence Int.;37:219-24. 2006.

17. Villalta P, Oliveira LC, Imparato JCP. Indirect composite onlay restorations in primary molars: a clinical report. J Clin Pediatr Dent.;31(1):17- 20. 2006.

18. Rabelo RTS, Teixeira ASC, Rontani RMP. An alternative aesthetic restoration for extensive coronal destruction in primary molars: indirect restorative technique with composite resin. J Clin Pediatr Dent.; 29(4):227-32. 2005.

19. Borges AFS, Correr GM, Sinhoreti MAC, Sobrinho LC, Rontani RMP. Compressive strength recovery by composite onlays in primary teeth: substrate treatment and luting agent effects. J Dent.; 34(7):478-84. 2006.

20. el-Kalla IH, Garcia-Goday F. Fracture strength of adhesively restored pulpotomized primary molars. J Dent Child.;66(4):238-42.1999.

21. Feasby WH, Clestone ER. Nickel sensitivity in pediatric dental patients. Pediatr Dent. 1998;10(2):127-9.

22. Yilmaz A, Ozdemir CE, Yilmaz Y. A delayed hypersensitivity reaction to a stainless steel crown: a case report. J Clin Pediatr Dent. ;36(3):235-8. 2012.

23. Guelmann M, Bookmyer KL, Villalta P, Garcia-Goday F. Microleakage of restorative techniques for pulpotomized molars. J Dent child.;71:209-11.2004.

24. Sharaf AA, Farsi NM. A clinical and radiographical evaluation of stainless steel crown for primary molars. J Dent.;32:27-33. 2004.

25. dos Santos MP, Passos M, Luiz RR, Maia LC. A randomized trial of resinbased restorations in class I and class II beveled preparations in primary molars: 24-month results. J Am Dent Assoc. ;140(2):156-66.2009.

26. Cehreli ZC, Centinguc A, Cengiz SB, Altay AN. Clinical performance of pulpotomized primary molars restored with resin based materials. 24- months results. Am J Dent.;19:262-66.2006.

27. Zulfikaroglu BT, Atac AS, Cehreli ZC. Clinical performance of Class II adhesive restorations in pulpectomized primary molars: 12-month results. J Dent Child.;75(1):33-43. 2008.

28. Guelmann M, Shapira J, Silva DR, Fuks AB. Esthetic restorative options for pulpotomized primary molars: A review of Literature. J Clin Pediatr Dent.;36(2):123-26.2011.

29. Dukic W, Dukic OL, Milardovic S, Delija B. Clinical evaluation of indirect composite restorations at baseline and 36 months after placement. Oper Dent; 35(2):156-64. 2010.

30. Feierabend S, Halbleib K, Klaiber B, Hellwig E. Laboratory-made composite resin restorations in children and adolescents with hypoplasia or hypomineralization of teeth. Quintessence Int.;43(4):305-11.2012.

31. Manhart J, Chen HY, Mehl A, Hickel R. Clinical study of indirect composite resin inlays in posterior stress-bearing preparations placed by dental students: results after 6 months and 1, 2, and 3 years. Quintessence Int.;41(5):399-410. 2010.

32. Chrepa V, Konstantinidis I, Kotsakis GA, Mitsias ME. The survival of indirect composite resin onlays for the restoration of root filled teeth: a retrospective medium term study. Int Endod J; 47(10):967-73. 2014.

33. Koyuturk AE, Ozmen B, Tokay U, Tuloglu N, Sari ME, Sonmez TT. Two-year follow up of indirect posterior composite restorations of permanent teeth with excessive material loss in pediatric patients: A clinical study. J Adhes Dent.;15(6):583-90. 2013.

34. Zulfikaroglu BT, Atac AS, Cehreli ZC. Clinical performance of Class II adhesive restorations in pulpectomized primary molars: 12-month results. J Dent Child.;75(1):33-43. 2008.

35. Bessing C, Lundqvist P. A 1-year clinical examination of indirect composite resin inlays: a preliminary report. Quintessence Int.;22(2):153- 57. 1991.

36. Roberson TM. Cariology: The lesion, etiology, prevention and control. In: Roberson TM, Heymann HO, Swift EJ. Sturdevants’s Art and science of operative dentistry. 5th ed. New Delhi: Mosby Elsevier; 2006. p. 94

37. Henderson HZ. Evaluation of the preformed stainless steel crown. ASDC J Dent Child.;40:353-81.1973.

38. Checchio LM, Gaskill WF, Carrel R. The relationship between periodontal disease and stainless steel crowns. ASDC J Dent Child.;50:205-9. 1983.

39. Threllfall AG, Pilkington L, Milsom KM, Blinkhorn AS, Tickle M. General dental practitioner’s views on the use of stainless steel crowns to restore primary molars. Br Dent J; 199(7):453-5. 2005

40. Vale T, Santos P, Moreira J, Manzanares MC, Ustrell JM. Perception of dental aesthetics in paediatric dentistry. Eur J Padiatr Dent.;10(3):110- 14. 2009.