Article Menu

Export Article

More by Authors Links

Article Data

  • Views 1836
  • Dowloads 129

Original Research

Open Access

Restorative Treatment on Class I and II Restorations in Primary Molars: A Survey of Brazilian Dental Schools

  • Cristiane Motisuki1,*,
  • Luciana Monti Lima1
  • Lourdes dos Santos-Pinto1
  • Márcio Guelmann2

1Department of Pediatric Dentistry, Araraquara Dental School, University of São Paulo State, Brazil

2Department of Pediatric Dentistry, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA

DOI: 10.17796/jcpd.30.2.p3114q5576651485 Vol.30,Issue 2,December 2005 pp.175-178

Published: 01 December 2005

*Corresponding Author(s): Cristiane Motisuki E-mail: cmotisuki@yahoo.com.br

PDF (143.31 kB) View Full-text

Abstract

A survey was sent to 70 Brazilian dental schools evaluating techniques and restorative materials being taught for Class I and II preparation in posterior primary teeth by Pediatric Dentistry courses. After a 54% response rate, marked teaching diversity was found among Brazilian dental schools. Amalgam continues to be taught, but a tendency of preference towards more esthetic-like materials was observed.


Cite and Share

Cristiane Motisuki,Luciana Monti Lima,Lourdes dos Santos-Pinto,Márcio Guelmann. Restorative Treatment on Class I and II Restorations in Primary Molars: A Survey of Brazilian Dental Schools. Journal of Clinical Pediatric Dentistry. 2005. 30(2);175-178.

URL:

https://www.jjocpd.com/articles/10.17796/jcpd.30.2.p3114q5576651485

References

1. Eley BM. The future of dental amalgam: a review of literature. Part 1: Dental amalgam structure and corrosion. Br Dent J 182: 247–249, 1997.

2. Khordi-Mood M, Sarraf-Shirazi AR, Balali-Mood M. Urinary mercury excretion following amalgam filling in children. J Toxicol Clin Toxicol 39: 701–705, 2001.

3. Berglund A, Molin M. Mercury vapor release from dental amal-gam in patients with symptoms allegedly caused by amalgams filling. Eur J Oral Sci 104: 56–63, 1996.

4. Rugg-Gunn AJ, Welbury JJ, Toumba J. British Society of Paediatric Dentistry: a Policy Document on the use of amalgam in paediatric dentistry. Inter J Pediatr Dent 11: 233–238, 2001.

5. Christensen GJ. Restoration of pediatric posterior teeth. J Am Dent Assoc 127: 106–108, 1996.

6. Mahler DB. The amalgam-tooth interface. Oper Dent 21: 230–236, 1996.

7. Guelmann M, Mjör IA. Materials and techniques for restoration of primary molars by pediatric dentists in Florida. Pediatr Dent 24: 326–331, 2002.

8. Wilson NHF, Mjör IA. The teaching of Class I and Class II direct composite restorations in European dental schools. J Dent 28: 15–21, 2000.

9. Mjör IA, Wilson NHF. Teaching Class I and Class II direct com-posite restorations: results of a survey of dental schools. J Am Dent Assoc 129: 1415–1421, 1998.

10. Fukushima M, Iwaku M, Setcos JC, Wilson NHF, Mjör IA. Teaching of posterior composite restorations in Japanese dental schools (abstract 1633). J Dent Res 77: 863, 1998.

11. Guelmann M, Mjör IA, Jerrell GR. The teaching of Class I and II restorations in primary molars: a survey of North American den-tal schools. Pediatr Dent 23: 410–414, 2001.

12. Buerkle V, Kuehnisch J, Guelmann M, Hickel R. Restoration materials for primary molars-results from a European survey. J Dent 33: 275–81, 2005.

13. Berg JH. The continuum of restorative materials in pediatric dentistry – a review for the clinician. Pediatr Dent 20: 93–100, 1998.

14. Papathanasiou AG, Curzon MEJ, Fairpo CG. The influence of restorative material on the survival rate of restorations in prima-ry molars. Pediatr Dent, 16: 282–288, 1994.

15. Croll TP, Helpin ML. Class II vitremer restoration of primary molars. J Dent Child 62: 17–21, 1995.

16. Croll TP, Bar-Zion Y, Segura A, Donly KJ. Clinicam performance of resin-modified glass ionomer cement restorations in primary teeth. J Am Dent Assoc 132: 1110–1116, 2001.

17. Roeters JJ, Frankenmolen F, Burgersdijk RC, Peters TC. Clinical evaluation of Dyract in primary molars: 3-year results. Am J Dent,11: 143–148, 1998.

18. 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.

19. Papagiannoulis L, Kakaboura A, Pantaleon F, Kavvadia K. Clinical evaluation of a polyacid-modified resin composite (com-pomer) in Class II restorations of primary teeth: a two-year fol-low-up study. Pediatr Dent 21: 231–234, 1999.

20. Mass E, Gordon M, Fuks AB. Assessment of compomer proxi-mal restorations in primary molars: A retrospective study in chil-dren. J Dent Child 66: 93–97, 1999.

21. Weiner RS, Weiner LK, Kugel G. Teaching the use of bases and liners: a survey of north american dental schools. J Am Dent Assoc 127: 1640–1644, 1996.

22. Christensen GJ. To base or not to base? J Am Dent Assoc 122: 61–62, 1991.

23. Akpata ES, Sadiq W. Post-operative sensitivity in glass-ionomer versus adhesive resin-lined posterior composites. Am J Dent 14: 34–38, 2001.

24. Gordan VV, Mjör IA, Hucke RD, Smith GE. Effect of different liner treatments on postoperative sensitivity of amalgam restora-tions. Quintessence Int 30: 55–59, 1999.

25. Hebling J, Giro EMA, Costa CAS. Human pulp response after an adhesive system application in deep cavities. J Dent 27: 557–564, 1999.

Submission Turnaround Time

Top