Clinical performance of pulpotomized primary molars restored with resin-based materials. 24-month results

American Journal of Dentistry

Volumn 19, Issue 5, 2006, Pages 262-266

  Cehreli, Zafer C ^a,b   Cetinguc, Aysegul ^b   Cengiz, Sevi Burcak ^c   Altay, A Nil ^b  

^a Hacettepe University ^*  (Turkey)

^b HACETTEPE UNIVERSITY   (Turkey)

^c BASKENT UNIVERSITY   (Turkey)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

COMPOMER; DYRACT; POLYMETHACRYLIC ACID DERIVATIVE; PRIME & BOND NT; RESIN; RESIN CEMENT; TPH HYBRID;

ARTICLE; CHILD; DECIDUOUS TOOTH; DENTAL BONDING; DENTAL CARIES; DENTAL SURGERY; ENDODONTICS; EVALUATION; FEMALE; FOLLOW UP; HUMAN; MALE; METHODOLOGY; MOLAR TOOTH; NONPARAMETRIC TEST; TOOTH DISEASE;

CHILD; COMPOMERS; COMPOSITE RESINS; DENTAL BONDING; DENTAL CARIES; DENTAL LEAKAGE; DENTAL RESTORATION, PERMANENT; FEMALE; FOLLOW-UP STUDIES; HUMANS; MALE; MOLAR; POLYMETHACRYLIC ACIDS; PULPOTOMY; RESIN CEMENTS; STATISTICS, NONPARAMETRIC; TOOTH, DECIDUOUS;

EID: 33750299477     PISSN: 08948275     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (39)

1. Randall RC, Vrijhoef MMA, Wilson NHF. Efficacy of preformed metal crowns vs. amalgam restorations in primary molars: A systematic review. J Am Dent Assoc 2000; 131: 337-343.
2. Dawson LR, Simon JF Jr, Taylor PP. Use of amalgam and stainless steel restorations for primary molars. J Dent Child 1981; 46:420-422.
3. Croll TP. Preformed posterior stainless steel crowns: An update. Compend Contin Educ Dent 1999; 20:89-104.
4. Guelmann M, McIlwain MF, Primosch RE. Radiographic assessment of primary molar pulpotomies with resin-based materials. Pediatr Dent 2005;27:24-27.
5. Guelmann M, Bookmyer KL, Villalta P, García-Godoy F. Microleakage of restorative techniques for pulpotomized molars. J Dent Child 2004;71:209-211.
6. Helfer AR, Melnick S, Schilder H. Determination of the moisture content of vital and pulpless teeth. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol 1972; 34:661-670.
7. Sedgley CM, Messer HH. Are endodontically treated teeth more brittle? J Endod 1992; 18:332-335.
8. Davina AB. A conservative approach to the pulpotomy in primary teeth. J Clin Pediatr Dent 1998; 22:103-105.
9. El-Kalla IH, García-Godoy F. Fracture strength of adhesively restored pulpotomized primary molars. J Dent Child 1999; 66:238-242.
10. Trope M, Tronstad L. Resistance to fracture of endodontically treated premolars restored with glass ionomer cement or acid etch composite resin. J Endod 1991; 17:257-259.
11. Papa J, Cain C, Messer HH. Moisture content of vital vs endodontically treated teeth. Endod Dent Traumatol 1994; 10:91-93.
12. Hernandez R, Bader S, Boston D, Trope M. Resistance to fracture of endodontically treated premolars with new generation dentine bonding systems. Int Endod J 1994; 27:281-284.
13. Manocci F, Bertelli E, Sheriff M, Watson TF, Ford TRP. Three-year clinical comparison of survival of endodontically treated teeth with either full cast coverage or with direct composite restoration. J Prosthet Dent 2002; 88:297-301.
14. Nagasiri R, Chitmongkolsuk S. Long-term survival of endodontically treated molars without crown coverage: A retrospective cohort study. J Prosthet Dent 2005; 93:164-170.
15. Farik B, Munksgaard EC. Fracture strength of intact and fragment bonded teeth at various velocities of me applied force. Eur J Oral Sci 1999; 107:70-73.
16. Holan G, Fuks AB, Keltz N. Success rate of formocresol pulpotomy in primary molars restored with stainless steel crown vs amalgam. Pediatr Dent 2002; 24:212-216.
17. Eakle WS. Fracture resistance of teeth restored with class II bonded composite resin. J Dent Res 1986; 65:149-153.
18. Roulet JF. Benefits and disadvantages of tooth-coloured alternatives to amalgam. J Dent 1997;25:459-473.
19. Cvar JF, Ryge G. Criteria for the clinical evaluation of dental restorative materials. US Department of Health Education and Welfare Publication 7902244, San Francisco: Government Printing Office, 1971.
20. Mondelli RFL, Barbosa WFS, Mondelli J, Franco EB, Carvalho RM. Fracture strength of weakened human premolars restores with amalgam with and without cusp coverage. Am J Dent 1998;11:181-184.
21. Linn J, Messer HH. Effect of restorative procedures on the strength of endodontically treated molars. J Endod 1994;20:479-485.
22. Eakle WS, Staninec M, Lacy AM. The effect of bonded amalgam on the fracture resistance of teeth. J Prosthet Dent 1991;68:257-260.
23. Tate WH, You C, Powers JM. Bond strength of compomers to dentin using acidic primers. Am J Dent 1999;12:235-242.
24. Cehreli ZC, Usmen E. Effect of surface conditioning on the shear bond strength of compomers to human primary and permanent enamel. Am J Dent 1999;12:26-30.
25. Glasspoole EA, Erickson RL, Davidson CL. Effect of enamel pretreatments on bond strength of compomer. J Dent 2001;17:402-408.
26. Baghdadi ZD. Bond strengths of Dyract AP compomer material to dentin of permanent and primary molars: Phosphoric acid versus non-rinse conditioner. J Dent Child 2003;70:145-152.
27. Bell JG, Smith MC, De Pont JJ. Cuspal failures of MOD restored teeth. Aust Dent J 1982;27:283-287.
28. Ferrari M, Vichi A, Manocci F, Davidson LD. Sealing ability of two compomers applied with and without phosphoric acid treatment for class V restorations in vivo. J Prosthet Dent 1998;79:131-135.
29. Prati C, Chersoni S, Cretti L, Montanari G. Retention and marginal adapta-tion of a compomer placed in non-stress bearing areas used with the total etch technique: A 3-year retrospective study. Clin Oral Investig 1998;2:168-173.
30. Van Meerbeek B, Peumans M, Gladys S, Braem M, Lambrechts P, Vanherle G. Three-year clinical effectiveness of four total-etch dentinal adhesive systems in cervical lesions. Quintessence Int 1996;27:775-784.
31. Papagiannoulis L, Kakaboura A, Pantaleon F, Kavvadia K. 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;21:232-235.
32. Marks LAM, Weerheijm KL, van Amerongen WE, Groen HJ, Martens LC. Dyract versus Tytin Class II restorations in primary molars: 38 months evaluation. Caries Res 1999;33:387-392.
33. Welbury RR, Shaw AJ, Murray JJ, Gordon PH, McCabe JF. Clinical evaluation of paired compomer and glass ionomer restorations in primary molars: Final results after 42 months. Br Dent J 2000;189:93-97.
34. Hashimoto M, Ohno H, Kaga M, Endo K, Sano H, Oguchi H. In vivo degradation of resin-dentin bonds in humans over 1 to 3 years. J Dent Res 2000;79:1385-1391.
35. Hashimoto M, Ohno H, Kaga M, Endo K, Sano H, Oguchi H. Resin-tooth adhesive interfaces after long-term function. Am J Dent 2001;14:211-215.
36. Arola D. Reprogel RK. Effects of aging on the mechanical behavior of human dentin. Biomaterials 2005;26:4051-4061.
37. Huang C, Tay FR, Cheung GSP, Kei LH, Wei SHY, Pashley DH. Hygroscopic expansion of a compomer and a composite on artificial gap reduction. J Dent 2002;30:11-19.
38. Kemp-Scholte CM, Davidson CL. Overhang of class V composite resin restorations from hygroscopic expansion. Quintessence Int 1989;20:551-3.
39. Shaw AJ, Carrick T, McCabe JF. Fluoride release from glass ionomer and compomer restorative materials. J Dent 1998;26:355-359.