Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

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

  • Published:
European Archives of Paediatric Dentistry Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Aylin Akbay OBA, Isil Saroglu Sönmez, Saziye Sari. Clinical evaluation of a colored compomer in primary molars. Med Princ Pract 2009;18:31–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Cvar J, Ryge G. Criteria for the clinical evaluation of dental restorative materials. US Public Health Service Publ 1971;790-244.

  • 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.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Frencken JE, Pilot T, Songpalsan Y, et al. Atraumatic restorative treatment (ART): Rationale, technique, development. J Public Health 1996;56;135–140.

    Google Scholar 

  • García-Godoy F. Resin-based composites and compomers in primary molars. Dent Clin North Am 2000;44(3):541–570.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Gross LC, Griffen AL, Casamassimo PS. Compomers as Class II restorations in primary molars. Pediatr Dent 2001;23(1):24–27.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hse KM, Wei SH. Clinical evaluation of compomer in primary teeth: 1-year results. J Am Dent Assoc 1997;128(8):1088–1096.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Krämer N, Frankenberger R. Compomers in restorative therapy of children: a literature review. Int J Paediatr Dent 2007;17(1):2–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Toh SL, Messer LB. Evidence-based assessment of tooth-colored restorations in proximal lesions of primary molars. Pediatr Dent 2007;29(1):8–15.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Vigild M, Skak-Iversen L, Friis-Hasche E. Legislation, Registration System, and Organization. Child Oral Health Care 1994;172–20.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • 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 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Dept. Paediatric Dentistry and Special Care, Centre for Special care in Dentistry, Ghent University, PaeCaMeD research, De Pintelaan 185 P8, B-9000, Gent, Belgium

    L. A. M. Marks & N. Faict

  2. Dept. Paediatric Dentistry, University of Glasgow Dental School, Scotland, UK

    R. R. Welbury

Authors
  1. L. A. M. Marks
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. N. Faict
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. R. R. Welbury
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to L. A. M. Marks.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Marks, L.A.M., Faict, N. & Welbury, R.R. Literature review: Restorations of class II cavities in the primary dentition with compomers. Eur Arch Paediatr Dent 11, 109–114 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03262725

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03262725

Key words

Search

Navigation