Advertisement

Restorative materials in the primary dentition of poli-caries patients

  • Norbert KrämerEmail author
  • U. Lohbauer
  • R. Frankenberger
Article

Abstract

Background: Despite an overall caries decline in children, still 50–60% of carious primary teeth of 6-year-olds remain untreated, in 3-year-olds 13%. There are an increasing number of poli-caries patients with insufficiently treated primary teeth. Therefore, early treatment is fundamental. Review: The assessment and indication for the use of restorative materials can be summarized as follows: Glass ionomer cements (GIC) are associated with easy handling and high fluoride release. This makes them attractive especially for Class I cavities in uncooperative children. However, low flexural strength causes high fracture rates in Class II cavities. Further developments (viscous and resin-modified GIC) have improved handling characteristics, but conventional non-resin-modified GIC are still prone to fracture. Compomers exhibit a clear potential as an alternative to amalgam. Long-term results are good even in stress-bearing areas. The compliance of the child should at least last long enough for adhesive application. Resin composites are still the most time-consuming alternative. Under a correct application protocol, resin composites behave in a similar manner to compomers. Therefore, the effort has to be judged individually. Finally, especially in severely decayed teeth and after endodontic treatment, preformed metal crowns should be taken into account as a last and appropriate alternative to direct restorations. Conclusion: Based on the high clinical success rates, compomers with self-etch adhesives can be recommended for restorative therapy in anterior and posterior primary teeth.

Key words

restorative materials primary teeth children 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Attin T, Opatowski A, Meyer C, et al. Three-year follow up assessment of class II restorations in primary molars with a polyacid-modified composite resin and a hybrid composite. Am J Dent 2001;14:148–152.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Berg JH. The continuum of restorative materials in pediatric dentistry—a review for the clinician. Pediatr Dent 1990;20:93–100.Google Scholar
  3. Burke FJ, Fleming GJ, Owen FJ, Watson DJ. Materials for restoration of primary teeth: 2. Glass ionomer derivatives and compomers. Dent Update 2002;29:10–17.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Burke FM, Hamlin PD, Lynch EJ. Depth of cure of light-cured glass-ionomer cements. Quintessence Int 1990;21:977–980.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Casagrande L, de Hipolito V, de Goes MF, de Araujo FB. Bond strength and interfacial morphology of two adhesive systems to deciduous dentin: in vitro study. J Clin Pediatr Dent 2005;29:317–322.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Croll TP. MagicFil: a colorful kiddie compomer. Compend Contin Educ Dent 2002;23:1044–1048.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. De Araujo FB, Garcia-Godoy F, Issao M. A comparison of three resin bonding agents to primary tooth dentin. Pediatr Dent 1997;19:253–257.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Donly KJ, Segura A, Kanellis M, Erickson RL: Clinical performance and caries inhibition of resin-modified glass ionomer cement and amalgam restorations. J Am Dent Assoc 1999;130:1459–1466.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Duggal MS, Nooh A, High A. Response of the primary pulp to inflammation: a review of the Leeds studies and challenges for the future. Eur J Paediatr Dent 2002;3:111–114.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. El-Kalla IH, Garcia-Godoy F. Bond strength and interfacial micromorphology of compomers in primary and permanent teeth. Int J Paediatr Dent 1998;8:103–114.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. El-Kalla IH, Garcia-Godoy F. Bond strength and interfacial micromorphology of four adhesive systems in primary and permanent molars. ASDC J Dent Child 1998;65:169–176.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. El-Kalla IH. Marginal adaptation of compomers in Class I and V cavities in primary molars. Am J Dent 1999;12:37–43.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Elkins CJ, McCourt JW. Bond strength of dentinal adhesives in primary teeth. Quintessence Int 1993;24:271–273.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Ernst CP, Weckmüller C, Willershausen B. Primary tooth build-ups using compomers. Schweiz Monatsschr Zahnmed 1995;105:665–671.Google Scholar
  15. Espelid I, Tveit AB, Tomes KH, Alvheim H. Clinical behaviour of glass ionomer restorations in primary teeth. J Dent 1999;27:437–442.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Frankenberger R, Sindel J, Krämer N, Petschelt A. Bond strength of different classes of adhesives with enamel and dentin of the first and second dentition. Dtsch Zahnärztl Z 1997;52:795–799.Google Scholar
  17. Frankenberger R, Krämer N, Graf A, Petschelt A. Cyclic fatigue of different glass ionomers and compomers. Dtsch Zahnärztl Z 1999a;54:269–271.Google Scholar
  18. Frankenberger R, Krämer N, Petschelt A. Bond strength of different adhesives to caries-affected primary dentin. Dtsch Zahnärztl Z 1999b;54:455–458.Google Scholar
  19. Fritz U, Garcia-Godoy F, Finger WJ. Enamel and dentin bond strength and bonding mechanism to dentin of Gluma CPS to primary teeth. ASDC J Dent Child 1997;64:32–38.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Garcia-Godoy F, Gwinnett AJ. Effect of etching times and mechanical pretreatment on the enamel of primary teeth: an SEM study. Am J Dent 1991;4:115–118.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Garcia-Godoy F, Hosoya Y. Bonding mechanism of Compoglass to dentin in primary teeth. J Clin Pediatr Dent 1998;22:217–220.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Garcia-Godoy F. Resin-based composites and compomers in primary molars. Dent Clin North Am 2000;44:541–570.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Gwinnett AJ, Garcia-Godoy F: Effect of etching time and acid concentration on resin shear bond strength to primary tooth enamel. Am J Dent 1992;5:237–239.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Hickel R, Kaaden C, Paschos E, et al. Longevity of occlusally-stressed restorations in posterior primary teeth. Am J Dent 2005;18:198–211.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Hosoya Y. The effect of acid etching times on ground primary enamel. J Clin Pediatr Dent 1991;15:188–194.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Hubel S, Mejare I. Conventional versus resin-modified glass-ionomer cement for Class II restorations in primary molars. A 3-year clinical study. Int J Paediatr Dent 2003;13:2–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kilpatrick NM. Durability of restorations in primary molars. J Dent 1993;21:67–73.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kodaka T, Nakajima F, Higashi S. Structure of the so-called ‘prismless’ enamel in human deciduous teeth. Caries Res 1989;23:290–296.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Krämer N, Frankenberger R: Clinical performance of a condensable metalreinforced glass ionomer cement in primary molars. Br Dent J 2001;190:317–321.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Kupietzky A, Waggoner WE, Galea J. Long-term photographic and radiographic assessment of bonded resin composite strip crowns for primary incisors: results after 3 years. Pediatr Dent 2005;27:221–225.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Lee BB, White GE. Chamfered margin effects on occlusal microleakage of primary molar Class I composite resin restorations in vitro. J Clin Pediatr Dent 1998;22:113–116.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Malferrari S, Finger WJ, Garcia-Godoy F. Resin bonding efficacy of Gluma 2000 to dentine of primary teeth: an in vitro study. Int J Paediatr Dent 1995;5:73–79.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Mazzeo N, Ott NW, Hondrum SO. Resin bonding to primary teeth using three adhesive systems. Pediatr Dent 1995;17:112–115.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 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 1999;33:387–392.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Mjor IA, Dahl JE, Moorhead JE: Placement and replacement of restorations in primary teeth. Acta Odontol Scand2002;60:25–28.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Mortada A, King NM. A simplified technique for the restoration of severely mutilated primary anterior teeth. J Clin Pediatr Dent 2004;28:187–192.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Nor JE, Feigal RJ, Dennison JB, Edwards CA. Dentin bonding: SEM comparison of the resin-dentin interface in primary and permanent teeth. J Dent Res 1996;75:1396–1403.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Nor JE, Feigal RJ, Dennison JB, Edwards CA. Dentin bonding: SEM comparison of the dentin surface in primary and permanent teeth. Pediatr Dent 1997;19:246–252.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Ostlund J, Moller K, Koch G. Amalgam, composite resin and glass ionomer cement in Class II restorations in primary molars — a three year clinical evaluation. Swed Dent J 1992;16:81–86.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. Pascon FM, Kantovitz KR, Caldo-Teixeira AS, et al. Clinical evaluation of composite and compomer restorations in primary teeth: 24-month results. J Dent 2006;34:381–388.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Pashley DH, Tay FR, Yiu C, et al. Collagen degradation by host-derived enzymes during aging. J Dent Res 2004;83:216–221.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Perdigao J, Swift EJ Jr., Denehy GE, Wefel JS, Donly KJ. In vitro bond strengths and SEM evaluation of dentin bonding systems to different dentin substrates. J Dent Res 1994;73:44–55.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Perdigao J, van Meerbeek B, Lopes MM, Ambrose WW. The effect of a rewetting agent on dentin bonding. Dent Mater 1999;15:282–295.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Pieper K. Epidemiological assessment in group prophylaxis 2004. Deutsche Arbeitsgemeinschaft für Jugendzahnpflege, 2005.Google Scholar
  45. 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 2004a;112:188–196.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Qvist V, Manscher E, Teglers, PT. Resin-modified and conventional glass ionomer restorations in primary teeth: 8-year results. J Dent 2004b;32:285–294.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Reichl FX, Durner J, Kehe K, et al. Toxicokinetic of HEMA in guinea pigs. J Dent 2002;30:353–358.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Ripa LW, Gwinnett AJ, Buonocore MG. The “prismless” outer layer of deciduous and permanent enamel. Arch Oral Biol 1966;11:41–48.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Roeters JJ. Frankenmolen F, Burgersdijk RC, Peters TC: Clinical evaluation of Dyract in primary molars: 3-year results. Am J Dent 1998; 11:143–148.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. Roulet JF. A clinical comparison of three composites with amalgam. Zahnärtl Welt 1977;86:1055–1062.Google Scholar
  51. Royse MC, Ott NW, Mathieu GP. Dentin adhesive superior to copal varnish in preventing microleakage in primary teeth. Pediatr Dent 1996;18:440–443.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. Sardella TN, de Castro FL, Sanabe ME, Hebling J. Shortening of primary dentin etching time and its implication on bond strength. J Dent 2005;33:355–362.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Smutka S, Jedrychowski J, Caputo A. An evaluation of primary enamel pretreatments and their effects on resin retention. J Dent Res 1978;57:796–799.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Staehle HJ, Koch MJ. Paediatric dentistry. Cologne: Deutscher Ärzte-Verlag, 1996.Google Scholar
  55. Sumikawa DA, Marshall GW, Gee L, Marshall SJ. Microstructure of primary tooth dentin. Pediatr Dent 1999;21:439–444.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  56. Tran LA, Messer LB: Clinicians’ choices of restorative materials for children. Aust Dent J 2003;48:221–232.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Turgut MD, Tekcicek M, Olmez S. Clinical evaluation of a polyacid-modified resin composite under different conditioning methods in primary teeth. Oper Dent 2004;29:515–523.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  58. Varpio M, Warfvinge J, Noren JG. Proximo-occlusal composite restorations in primary molars: marginal adaptation, bacterial penetration, and pulpal reactions. Acta Odontol Scand 1990;48:161–167.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Whittaker DK. Structural variations in the surface zone of human tooth enamel observed by scanning electron microscopy. Arch Oral Biol 1982;27:383–392.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© European Archives of Paediatric Dentistry 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Norbert Krämer
    • 1
    Email author
  • U. Lohbauer
    • 2
  • R. Frankenberger
    • 2
  1. 1.Dept Paediatric DentistryUniversity Medical Centre Carl Gustav CamsGermany
  2. 2.Dental Clinic 1: Operative Dentistry, Periodontology and Paediatric DentistryUniversity Medical CentreErlangenGermany

Personalised recommendations