The prescription and relative outcomes of different materials used in general dental practice in the north west region of England to restore the primary dentition

Journal of Dentistry

Volumn 30, Issue 2-3, 2002, Pages 77-82

  Milsom, K M ^a   Tickle, M ^b   Blinkhorn, A ^c  

^a Countess of Chester Hospital ^*  (United Kingdom)

^b Gateway House   (United Kingdom)

^c UNIVERSITY DENTAL HOSPITAL OF MANCHESTER   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Deciduous teeth; General dental practice; Outcomes; Restorative materials

Indexed keywords

AMALGAM; GLASS IONOMER; ANTIINFECTIVE AGENT; DENTAL ALLOY; RESIN;

ADULT; ARTICLE; CHILD; COMPOSITE MATERIAL; CONTROLLED STUDY; DENTAL CARE; DENTAL CARIES; DENTITION; GENERAL PRACTITIONER; HUMAN; MEDICAL RECORD; MOLAR TOOTH; REPARATIVE DENTISTRY; TOOTH EXTRACTION; TOOTH FILLING; TOOTH INFECTION; TOOTH PAIN; CLINICAL PRACTICE; COMPARATIVE STUDY; DECIDUOUS TOOTH; DENTAL SURGERY; GENERAL PRACTICE; METHODOLOGY; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PRESCHOOL CHILD; RETREATMENT; RETROSPECTIVE STUDY; STATISTICAL MODEL; UNITED KINGDOM;

ANTI-BACTERIAL AGENTS; CHILD; CHILD, PRESCHOOL; COMPOSITE RESINS; DENTAL AMALGAM; DENTAL RESTORATION FAILURE; DENTAL RESTORATION, PERMANENT; DENTIST'S PRACTICE PATTERNS; ENGLAND; GENERAL PRACTICE, DENTAL; GLASS IONOMER CEMENTS; HUMANS; LOGISTIC MODELS; MOLAR; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT (HEALTH CARE); RETREATMENT; RETROSPECTIVE STUDIES; TOOTH EXTRACTION; TOOTH, DECIDUOUS;

EID: 0036482299     PISSN: 03005712     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/S0300-5712(01)00061-6     Document Type: Article

References (8)

1. Pitts NB, Evans DJ, Nugent ZJ. The dental caries experience of 5-year-old children in the United Kingdom. Surveys co-ordinated by the British Association for the Study of Community Dentistry in 1997/98. Community Dent Health 1999;16:50-6.
2. Crawford PJM, Davenport E, Page J, Williams S. Restorative dentistry for children. In: Ward P, editor. Setting standards in dental care for children, Special edition dental profile Eastbourne: Dental Practice Board, 1997. p. 8-10.
3. Varpio M. Proximal composite restorations in primary molars: a six-year follow up. J Dent Child 1985;52:435-40.
4. Qvist V, Laurberg L, Poulsen A, Teglers PT. Longevity and cariostatic effects of everyday conventional glass ionomer and amalgam restorations in primary teeth: three-year results. J Dent Res 1997;76:1387-96.
5. Welbury RR, Walls AW, Murray JJ, McCabe JF. The 5-year results of a clinical trial comparing a glass polyalkenoate (ionomer) cement restoration with an amalgam restoration. Br Dent J 1991;170:177-81.
6. Tickle M, Milsom KM, King D, Kearney-Mitchell P, Blinkhorn AS. The fate of the carious primary teeth of children who regularly attend the General Dental Service. Br Dent J 2001 in press.
7. Tickle M, Milsom K, Kennedy A. Is it better to leave or restore carious deciduous molar teeth? A preliminary study. Primary Dent Care 1999;6(4):127-31.
8. Kilpatrick NM, Murray JJ, McCabe JF. The use of reinforced glass-ionomer cermet for the restoration of primary molars: a clinical trial. Br Dent J 1995;179(5):175-9.