Clinical evaluation of paired compomer and glass ionomer restorations in primary molars: Final results after 42 months

British Dental Journal

Volumn 189, Issue 2, 2000, Pages 93-97

  Welbury, R R ^a   Shaw, A J ^a   Murray, J J ^a   Gordon, P H ^a   McCabe, J F ^a  

^a NEWCASTLE DENTAL HOSPITAL   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ALUMINUM SILICATE; COMPOMER; DYRACT; GLASS IONOMER; METHACRYLIC ACID DERIVATIVE; SILICATE;

ARTICLE; CHI SQUARE DISTRIBUTION; CHILD; CLINICAL TRIAL; COMPARATIVE STUDY; CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED STUDY; DECIDUOUS TOOTH; DENTAL CARIES; DENTAL SURGERY; ENDODONTICS; FOLLOW UP; HUMAN; METHODOLOGY; MOLAR TOOTH; PRESCHOOL CHILD; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; RECURRENT DISEASE; SURVIVAL;

ALUMINUM SILICATES; CHI-SQUARE DISTRIBUTION; CHILD; CHILD, PRESCHOOL; COMPOMERS; DENTAL CARIES; DENTAL RESTORATION FAILURE; DENTAL RESTORATION WEAR; DENTAL RESTORATION, PERMANENT; FOLLOW-UP STUDIES; GLASS IONOMER CEMENTS; HUMANS; MARGINAL ADAPTATION (DENTISTRY); METHACRYLATES; MOLAR; RECURRENCE; SILICATES; SURVIVAL ANALYSIS; TOOTH, DECIDUOUS;

EID: 0034702429     PISSN: 00070610     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1038/sj.bdj.4800693a     Document Type: Review

References (19)

1. Roberts J F, Sheriff M. The fate and survival of amalgam and preformed restorations placed in specialist paediatric dental practice. Br Dent J 1990; 169: 237-244.
2. Kilpatrick N M. Durability of restorations in primary molars. J Dent 1993; 21: 67-73.
3. Welbury R R, Walls A W G, Murray J J, McCabe J F. The 5 year results of a clinical trial comparing a glass polyalkenoate (ionomer) cement restoration with an amalgam restoration. Br Dent J 1991; 170: 177-181.
4. Kilpatrick N M, Murray J J, McCabe J F. The use of a reinforced glass-ionomer cermet for the restoration of primary molars: a clinical trial. Br Dent J 1995; 179: 175-179.
5. McLean J W, Nicholson J W, Wilson A D. Proposed nomenclature for glass ionomer dental cements and related materials. Quint Int 1994; 25: 587-589.
6. Attin T, Vataschki M, Hellwig E. Properties of resin-modified glass ionomer restorative materials and two poly acid-modified resin composite materials. Quint Int 1996; 27: 203-209.
7. Triana R, Prado C, Garo J, Garcia-Godoy F, Dentine bond strength of fluoride releasing materials. Am J Dent 1994; 7: 252-254.
8. Cortes O, Garcia-Godoy F, Boj J R, Bond strength of resin reinforced glass ionomer cements after enamel etching. Am J Dent 1993; 6: 299-301.
9. Shaw A J, Carrick T, McCabe J F. Fluoride release from glass ionomer and compomer restorative materials: 6 month data. J Dent 1998; 26: 355-359.
10. Welbury R R, Shaw A J, Murray J J, McCabe J F. Clinical evaluation of paired compomer and GIC restorations in primary teeth. J Dent Res 1998 SI Abs 47.
11. Andersson-Wenckert I E, Folkesson U H, van Dijken J M V. Durability of a polyacid-modified composite resin (compomer) in primary teeth. A multicenter study. Acta Odontol Scan 1997; 55: 255-260.
12. Hse K M Y, Wei S H Y. Clinical evaluation of a compomer in primary teeth: 1 year results. J Am Dent Ass 1997; 128: 1088-1096
13. Roeters J J M, Frankenmolen F, Burgersdijk R C W. Clinical evaluation of Dyract in primary molars: 3 year results. Am J Dent 1998; 3: 143-148.
14. Marks L A M, Weerheijm K L, van Amerongen W E et al. Dyract versus Tytin class II restorations in primary molars: 36 months evaluation. Caries Res 1999; 33: 387-392.
15. Ryge G. Clinical Criteria. Int Dent J 1980; 30: 347-358.
16. Machin P, Campbell M, Fayers P, Pirol A. Sample size tables for clinical studies. 2nd ed. Oxford: Blackwell, 1997.
17. Knibbs P J, Plant C G, Pearson G J. An evaluation of an anhydrous glass ionomer cement in general dental practice. Br Dent J 1986; 160: 170-173.
18. Bilgin Z, Ozalp N. Fluoride release from three different types of Glass Ionomer Cements after exposure to NaF solution and APF gel. J Clin Pediatr Dent 1998; 22: 237-241.
19. Peto R, Pike M C, Armitage P et al. Design and analysis of randomised clinical trials requiring prolonged observation of each patient. II Analysis and examples. Br J Cancer 1977; 35: 1-39.