Three-year follow up assessment of Class II restorations in primary molars with a polyacid-modified composite resin and a hybrid composite

American Journal of Dentistry

Volumn 14, Issue 3, 2001, Pages 148-152

  Attin, Thomas ^a   Opatowski, Amir ^d   Meyer, Claus ^d   Zingg Meyer, Barbara ^d   Buchalla, Wolfgang ^b   Mönting, Joachim Schulte ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF GÖTTINGEN   (Germany)

^b INDIANA UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF DENTISTRY   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF FREIBURG   (Germany)

^d University of Freiburg ^*

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

COMPOGLASS; COMPOMER; DENTIN BONDING AGENT; GLASS IONOMER; RESIN; SPECTRUM COMPOSITE RESIN; TPH HYBRID;

ARTICLE; CHEMISTRY; CHI SQUARE DISTRIBUTION; CHILD; CLASSIFICATION; CLINICAL TRIAL; COLOR; CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED STUDY; DECIDUOUS TOOTH; DENTAL ACID ETCHING; DENTAL BONDING; DENTAL CARIES; DENTAL SURGERY; ENDODONTICS; FEMALE; FOLLOW UP; HUMAN; MALE; METHODOLOGY; MOLAR TOOTH; NONPARAMETRIC TEST; PRESCHOOL CHILD; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; RECURRENT DISEASE; STATISTICS; SURFACE PROPERTY; SURVIVAL; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

ACID ETCHING, DENTAL; CHI-SQUARE DISTRIBUTION; CHILD; CHILD, PRESCHOOL; COLOR; COMPOMERS; COMPOSITE RESINS; DENTAL BONDING; DENTAL CARIES; DENTAL RESTORATION, PERMANENT; DENTIN-BONDING AGENTS; FEMALE; FOLLOW-UP STUDIES; GLASS IONOMER CEMENTS; HUMANS; MALE; MARGINAL ADAPTATION (DENTISTRY); MOLAR; PULPECTOMY; RECURRENCE; STATISTICS; STATISTICS, NONPARAMETRIC; SURFACE PROPERTIES; SURVIVAL ANALYSIS; TOOTH, DECIDUOUS; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

EID: 0035380445     PISSN: 08948275     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (41)

1. Croll P. Restorative dentistry for preschool children. Dent Clin North Am 1995;39:737-770.
2. Kilpatrick NM. Durability of restorations in primary molars. J Dent 1993;21:67-73.
3. Folkesson UH, Andersson-Wenckert IE, van Dijken JWV. Resin-modified glass-ionomer cement restorations in primary molars. Swed Dent J 1999;23:1-9.
4. Attin T, Buchalla W, Kielbassa AM, et al. Curing shrinkage and volumetric changes of resin modified glass-ionomer restorative materials. Dent Mater 1995;11:359-362.
5. Attin T, Vataschki M, Hellwig E. Properties of resin-modified glass-ionomer restorative materials and two polyacid-modified composite resin composite materials. Quintessence Int 1996;27:203-209.
6. El-Kalla IH, García-Godoy F. Mechanical properties of compomer restorative materials. Oper Dent 1999,24:2-8.
7. Sturdevant JR, Lundee TF, Sluder TB Jr, et al. Five-year study of two light-cured posterior composite resins. Dent Mater 1988;4:105-110.
8. Bevan FL, Braham RL. Clinical handling properties of Herculite in posterior teeth. Am J Dent 1989;2:17-20.
9. Krejci I, Wiedmer CS, Lutz F. Clinical, radiographic and SEM evaluation of compomer restorations in deciduous teeth after 2 years (in German). Acta Med Dent Helv 1998;3:48-52.
10. Ernst CP, Weckmüller C, Willershausen B. Milchzahnaufbauten mit Kompomeren. Schweiz Monatsschr Zahnmed 1995;105:665-669.
11. Papagiannoulis L, Kakaboura A, Pantaleon F, et al. Clinical evaluation of polyacid-modified resin composite (compomer) in Class II restorations of primary teeth: A two-year follow-up study. Pediatr Dent 1999;21:232-235.
12. Peters TCRB, Roeters JJM, Frankenmolen FWA. Clinical evaluation of Dyract in primary molars: 1-year results. Am J Dent 1996;9:83-87.
13. Andersson-Wenckert IE, Folkesson UH, van Dijken JWV. Durability of a polyacid-modified composite resin (compomer) in primary molars. A multicenter study. Acta Odontol Scand 1997;55:255-260.
14. 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 Investigations 1998;2:115-119.
15. Attin T, Opatowski A, Meyer C, et al. Class-II restorations with a polyacid-modified composite resin in primary molars performed in a dental practice: Results of a two-year clinical evaluation. Oper Dent 2000; 25:259-264.
16. Ryge G. Clinical criteria. Int Dent J 1980;30: 347-358.
17. Kaplan EL, Meier P. Nonparametric estimation from incomplete observations. Am Statist Assoc J 1958;53:457-481.
18. Nelson GV, Osborne JW, Gale EN, et al. A three year clinical evaluation of composite resin and a high copper amalgam in posterior primary teeth. J Dent Child 1980; 47:414-418.
19. Östlund J, Möller K, Koch G. Amalgam, composite resin and glass-ionomer cement in Class II restorations in primary molars. A three-year clinical evaluation. Sweet Dent J 1992;16:81-86.
20. Welbury RR, Walls AW, Murray JJ, et al. 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.
21. Qvist V, Laurberg L, Poulsen A, et al. Longevity and cariostatic effects of everyday conventional glass-ionomer and amalgam restorations in primary teeth: Three-year results. J Dent Res 1997;76:1387-1396.
22. Andersson-Wenckert I, van Dijken JWV, Stenberg R. Effect of cavity form on the durability of glass-ionomer cement restoration in primary teeth: A three-year clinical evaluation. J Dent Child 1995;62:197-200.
23. Ölmez A, Cula S, Ulusu T. Clinical evaluation and marginal leakage of Amalgambond Plus: Three-year results. Quintessence Int 1997;28:651-656.
24. Qvist J, Qvist V, Mjör IA. Placement and longevity of amalgam restorations in Denmark. Acta Odontol Scand 1990;48:297-303.
25. Marks LAM, Weerhijm KL, van Amerongen WE, et al. Dyract versus Tytin class II restorations in primary molars: 36 month evaluation. Caries Res 1999;33:387-392.
26. Roeters JJM, Frankenmolen F, Burgersdijk RCW, et al. Clinical evaluation of Dyract in primary molars: 3-year results. Am J Dent 1998;11:143-148.
27. Qvist V, Thylstrup, Mjör IA. Restorative treatment pattern and longevity of resin restorations in Denmark. Acta Odontol Scand 1986;44:351-356.
28. Attin T, Buchalla W. Physical properties and clinical behaviour of compomers (in German) Dtsch Zahnärztl Z 1998; 53:766-774.
29. Going RE, Sawinski VJ. Frequency of use of the rubber dam: A survey. J Am Dent Assoc 1967;75:158-166.
30. Marshall K, Page J. The use of rubber dam in the UK. A survey. Br Dent J 1990;169:286-291.
31. Kamann WK. Kofferdam-Wandel von Indikation und Technik. Schweiz Monatsschr Zahnmed 1998;108:771-777.
32. Smales RJ. Effect of rubber dam isolation on restoration deterioration. Am J Dent 1992;5:277-179.
33. Samaranayake LP, Reid J, Evans D. The efficacy of rubber dam isolation in reducing atmospheric bacterial contamination. ASDC J Dent Child 1989;56:442-444.
34. Varpio M. Caries prevalence and therapy in the deciduous dentition from 3 to 8 years - A longitudinal study. Acta Odontol Scand 1981;39:307-312.
35. Van Waes H, Ben-Zur E. Stahlkronen in der Kinderzahnmedizin. Schweizer Monatsschr Zahnmed 1989; 99:795-804.
36. Einwag J, Dünninger P. Stainless steel crown versus multisurface amalgam restorations: An 8-year longitudinal clinical study. Quintessence Int 1996;27:321-323.
37. Garcia-Godoy F, Landry JK, Evaluation of stainless steel crowns luted with glass inomer cement J Pedod 1989; 13: 328-330.
38. Messer LB, Levering NJ. The durability of primary molar restorations:II. Observation and predictions of success of stainless steel crowns. Pediatr Dent 1988; 10: 81-85.
39. Attin T, Kielbassa AM, Plogmann S, et al. Fluoride release from compomers in the acidic and neutral environment (in German). Dtsch Zahnärztl Z 1996;51:675-678.
40. Friedl KH, Schmalz G, Hiller KA, et al. Resin-modified glass-ionomer cements: Fluoride release and influence on streptococcus mutans growth. Eur J Oral Sci 1997;105:81-85.
41. Klimek J, Ganss C, Bünker H. Secondary caries around different restorative materials in relation to the use of nonfluoridated or fluoridated toothpaste in situ. Caries Research 1997;31:314 (Abstr 101).