Advertisement

European Archives of Paediatric Dentistry

, Volume 11, Issue 3, pp 109–114 | Cite as

Literature review: Restorations of class II cavities in the primary dentition with compomers

  • L. A. M. MarksEmail author
  • N. Faict
  • R. R. Welbury
Article
First Online:

Abstract

BACKGROUND: A large number of studies concerning the use of compomers in class II cavities in the primary dentition already exist, but the variety of the research perspectives is even bigger. AIM: This study therefore intends to abridge and evaluate the existing research through a systematic literature review. METHODS: In order to gather relevant articles an extended literature research was carried out. The criteria for the evaluation of the resulting articles were based on the article of Kilpatrick and Neumann [2007]. RESULTS: According to the subject of the research, the articles were divided into the following groups: PAM-C; PAM-C and amalgam; PAM-C and GIC; PAM-C and hybrid composites; PAM-C and pre-treatment. CONCLUSIONS: The findings lead to the conclusion that PAM-C can be an alternative to other restorative materials in the primary dentition in class II cavities, except in the case of teeth with pulpectomies or pulpotomies. The placement of compomers takes longer than placing amalgam, but the procedure consists of fewer steps compared to composites. However, patient-compliance remains essential.

Key words

class II compomers primary teeth 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 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 1997;55(4):255–260.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Attin T, Opatowski A, Meyer C, et al. Clinical evaluation of a hybrid composite and a polyacid-modified composite resin in Class-II restorations in deciduous molars. Clin Oral Investig 1998;2(3):115–119.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Attin T, Opatowski A, Meyer C, et al. Class II restorations with a polyacid-modified composite resin in primary molars placed in a dental practice: results of a two-year clinical evaluation. Oper Dent 2000;25(4):259–264.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 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(3):148–152.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Aylin Akbay OBA, Isil Saroglu Sönmez, Saziye Sari. Clinical evaluation of a colored compomer in primary molars. Med Princ Pract 2009;18:31–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cehreli ZC, Cetinguc A, Cengiz SB, et al. Clinical performance of pulpotomized primary molars restored with resin-based materials. 24-month results. Am J Dent 2006;19(5):262–266.Google Scholar
  7. Chadwick BL, Evans DJP. Restoration of class II cavities in primary molar teeth with conventional and resin modified glass ionomer cements: a systematic review of the literature. Eur Arch Paediatr Dent 2007;8(1):14–21.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cvar J, Ryge G. Criteria for the clinical evaluation of dental restorative materials. US Public Health Service Publ 1971;790-244.Google Scholar
  9. Daou MH, Tavernier B, Meyer JM. Clinical evaluation of four different dental restorative materials: one-year results. Schweiz Monatsschr Zahnmed 2008;118(4):290–295.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 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 2002;193(6):339–342.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Frencken JE, Pilot T, Songpalsan Y, et al. Atraumatic restorative treatment (ART): Rationale, technique, development. J Public Health 1996;56;135–140.Google Scholar
  12. García-Godoy F. Resin-based composites and compomers in primary molars. Dent Clin North Am 2000;44(3):541–570.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Gross LC, Griffen AL, Casamassimo PS. Compomers as Class II restorations in primary molars. Pediatr Dent 2001;23(1):24–27.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Hse KM, Wei SH. Clinical evaluation of compomer in primary teeth: 1-year results. J Am Dent Assoc 1997;128(8):1088–1096.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Kavvadia K, Kakaboura A, Vanderas AP, et al. Clinical evaluation of a compomer and an amalgam primary teeth class II restorations: a 2-year comparative study. Pediatr Dent 2004;26(3):245–250.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Kilpatrick NM, Neumann A. Durability of amalgam in the restoration of class II cavities in primary molars: a systematic review of the literature. Eur Arch Paediatr Dent 2007;8(1):5–13.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Koupis NS, Marks LAM, Verbeeck RMH, et al. Review: Finishing and polishing procedures of (resin-modified) glass ionomers and compomers in paediatric dentistry. Eur Arch Paediatr Dent 2007;8(1):22–28.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Krämer N, Frankenberger R. Compomers in restorative therapy of children: a literature review. Int J Paediatr Dent 2007;17(1):2–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Krämer N, Lohbauer U, Frankenberger R. Restorative materials in the primary dentition of poli-caries patients. Eur Arch Paediatr Dent 2007;8(1):29–35.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Louw AJ, Sarvan I, Chikte UM, et al. One-year evaluation of atraumatic restorative treatment and minimum intervention techniques on primary teeth. SADJ 1999;57(9):366–371.Google Scholar
  21. Marks LA, Van Amerongen WE, Kreulen CM, et al. Conservative interproximal box-only polyacid modified composite restorations in primary molars, twelve-month clinical results. ASDC J Dent Child 1999;66(1):23–29.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Marks LA, Weerheijm KL, Van Amerongen WE, et al. Dyract versus Tytin Class II restorations in primary molars: 36 months evaluation. Caries Res 1999;33(5):387–392.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Marks LA, Van Amerongen WE, Borgmeijer PC, et al. Ketac Molar Versus Dyract Class II restorations in primary molars: twelve month clinical results. ASDC J Dent Child 2000;67(1):37–41.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Mass E, Gordon M, Fuks AB. Assessment of compomer proximal restorations in primary molars: a retrospective study in children. ASDC J Dent Child 1999;66(2):93–97.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Papagiannoulis L, Kakaboura A, Pantaleon F, et al. Clinical evaluation of a polyacid-modified resin composite (compomer) in Class II restorations of primary teeth:a two-year follow-up study. Pediatr Dent 1999;21(4):231–234.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 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(6):381–388.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Qvist V, Laurberg L, Poulsen A, et al. Class II restorations in primary teeth: 7-year study on three resin-modified glass ionomer cements and a compomer. Eur J Oral Sci 2004;112(2):188–196.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Roeters JJ, Frankenmolen F, Burgersdijk RC, et al. Clinical evaluation of Dyract in primary molars: 3-year results. Am J Dent 1998;11(3):143–148.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Soncini JA, Maserejian NN, Trachtenberg F, et al. 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 2007;138(6):763–772.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Toh SL, Messer LB. Evidence-based assessment of tooth-colored restorations in proximal lesions of primary molars. Pediatr Dent 2007;29(1):8–15.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 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(5):515–523.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Vigild M, Skak-Iversen L, Friis-Hasche E. Legislation, Registration System, and Organization. Child Oral Health Care 1994;172–20.Google Scholar
  33. Welbury RR, Shaw AJ, Murray JJ, et al. Clinical evaluation of paired compomer and glass ionomer restorations in primary molars: final results after 42 months. Br Dent J 2000;189(2):93–97.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Yengopal V, Hamekar SY, Patel N, et al. Dental fillings for the treatment of caries in the primary dentition. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2009;2.Google Scholar
  35. Zulfikaroglu BT, Atac AS, Cehreli ZC. Clinical performance of Class II adhesive restorations in pulpectomized primary molars: 12-month results. J Dent Child 2008;75(1):33–43.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Adis International 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Dept. Paediatric Dentistry and Special Care, Centre for Special care in DentistryGhent University, PaeCaMeD researchGentBelgium
  2. 2.Dept. Paediatric DentistryUniversity of Glasgow Dental SchoolScotland, UK

Personalised recommendations

Cite article

Buy options