JOURNAL BROWSE
Search
Advanced SearchSearch Tips
Retrospective Study of Survival Rates According to the Type of Dental Restoration of Proximal Caries in Primary Molars
facebook(new window)  Pirnt(new window) E-mail(new window) Excel Download
 Title & Authors
Retrospective Study of Survival Rates According to the Type of Dental Restoration of Proximal Caries in Primary Molars
Jih, Myeongkwan; Lee, Sangho; Lee, Nanyoung;
  PDF(new window)
 Abstract
Restorative dental materials have advanced rapidly, with improved physical properties that improve survival rates. Accordingly, various materials can be selected. Amalgam, composite resin, glass-ionomer cement, and preformed stainless steel crowns have all been used widely for the restoration of dental caries in primary molars. The various dental materials used to treat proximal caries in the primary molars have distinct advantages and disadvantages. However, few studies have examined their survival rates. This retrospective study examined the 2-year survival rates of more than 700 class II restorations of proximal caries in primary molars clinically and radiologically according to the type of restoration. The study results should help in the selection of class II restorations for molars, one of the biggest concerns of pediatric dentists.
 Keywords
Primary teeth;Molar;Dental caries;Dental materials;Permanent dental restoration;
 Language
Korean
 Cited by
 References
1.
Korean Academy of Pediatric dentistry : Pediatric dentistry, 5th ed. Shinhung international, Inc, Seoul, 349-386, 2014.

2.
Tran LA, Messer LB : Clinicians'choices of restorative materials for children. Aust Dent J, 48: 221-32, 2003. crossref(new window)

3.
Martignon S, Tellez M, Ekstrand KR, et al. : Sealing distal proximal caries lesions in first primary molars: efficacy after 2.5 years. Caries Res, 44:562-70, 2010. crossref(new window)

4.
Bimstein E : Frequency of alveolar bone loss adjacent to proximal caries in the primary molars and healing due to restoration of the teeth. Pediatr Dent, 14:30-3, 1992.

5.
Bimstein E, Treasure ET, Williams SM, Dever JG : Alveolar bone loss in 5-year-old New Zealand children: its prevalence and relationship to caries prevalence, socio-economic status and ethnic origin. J Clin Periodontol, 21:447-50, 1994. crossref(new window)

6.
Rasines Alcaraz MG, Veitz-Keenan A, Iheozor-Ejiofor Z : Direct composite resin fillings versus amalgam fillings for permanent or adult posterior teeth. Cochrane Database Syst Rev, 31:CD005620, 2014.

7.
Miriam VI, Shetty R, Hegde A : Mercury exposure levels in children with dental amalgam fillings. Int J Clin Pediatr Dent, 7:180-5, 2014. crossref(new window)

8.
Priya EL, Ranganathan K, Wilson K, et al. : A study of sister chromatid exchange in patients with dental amalgam restorations. Indian J Dent Res, 25:772-6, 2014. crossref(new window)

9.
Mendez-Visag C : Responsible management of dental amalgam mercury: a review of its impact on health. Rev Peru Med Exp Salud Publica, 31:725-32, 2014.

10.
Ghavamnasiri M, Eslami S, Moghadam FV, et al. : Effect of amalgam corrosion products in non-discolored dentin on the bond strength of replaced composite resin. J Conserv Dent, 18:25-9, 2015. crossref(new window)

11.
Rasmusson CG, Lundin SA : Class II restorations in six different posterior composite resins: five-year results. Swed Dent J, 19:173-82, 1995.

12.
Geurtsen W, Schoeler U : A- 4year retrospective clinical study of class I and class II composite restorations. J Dent, 25:229-32, 1997. crossref(new window)

13.
Croll TP, Nicholson JW : Glass ionomer cements in pediatric dentistry: review of the literature. Pediatr Dent, 24:423-9, 2002.

14.
Bonifacio CC, Hesse D, van Amerongen WE, et al. : The effect of GIC-brand on the survival rate of proximal-ART restorations. Int J Paediatr Dent, 23:251-8, 2013. crossref(new window)

15.
Phonghanyudh A, Phantumvanit P, Songpaisan Y, Petersen PE : Clinical evaluation of three caries removal approaches in primary teeth: a randomised controlled trial. Community Dent Health, 29:173-8, 2012.

16.
Kemoli AM, Opinya GN, van Amerongen WE, Mwalili SM : Two-year survival rates of proximal atraumatic restorative treatment restorations in relation to glass ionomer cements and postrestoration meals consumed. Pediatr Dent, 33:246-51, 2011.

17.
Engel RJ : Chrome steel as used in children's dentistry. Chron Omaha Dist Dent Soc, 13:255-258, 1950.

18.
Randall RC : Preformed metal crowns for primary and permanent molar teeth: review of the literature. Pediatr Dent, 24:489-500, 2002.

19.
Scholtanus JD, Ozcan M : Clinical longevity of extensive direct composite restorations in amalgam replacement: up to 3.5 years follow-up. J Dent, 42:1404-10, 2014. crossref(new window)

20.
Carvalho TS, Sampaio FC, Van Amerongen WE et al. : Two years survival rate of Class II ART restorations in primary molars using two ways to avoid saliva contamination. Int J Paediatr Dent, 20:419-25, 2010. crossref(new window)

21.
Kilpatrick NM : Durability of restorations in primary molars. J Dent, 21:67-73, 1993. crossref(new window)

22.
Schuler IM, Hiller M, Heinrich-Weltzien R, et al. : Clinical success of stainless steel crowns placed under general anaesthesia in primary molars: An observational follow up study. J Dent, 42:1396-403, 2014. crossref(new window)

23.
Planells del Pozo P, Fuks AB : Zirconia crowns--an esthetic and resistant restorative alternative for ECC affected primary teeth. J Clin Pediatr Dent, 38:193-5, 2014. crossref(new window)

24.
Casagrande L, Bento LW : Indirect pulp treatment in primary teeth: 4-year results. Am J Dent, 23:34-8, 2010.

25.
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, 193:339-42, 2002. crossref(new window)

26.
Allison PJ, Schwartz S : Interproximal contact points and proximal caries in posterior primary teeth. Pediatr Dent, 25:334-40, 2003.