Flowable resin composite as a class II restorative in primary molars: A two-year clinical evaluation

Acta Odontologica Scandinavica

Volumn 64, Issue 6, 2006, Pages 334-340

  Andersson Wenckert, Ingrid ^a   Sunnegårdh Grönberg, Karin ^a  

^a UMEÅ UNIVERSITY   (Sweden)

Author keywords

Clinical trial; Dental restoration; Glass ionomer cement; Primary teeth; Resin composite

Indexed keywords

ADHESIVE AGENT; GLASS IONOMER; PHOSPHORIC ACID; RESIN;

ARTICLE; CHILD; CLINICAL EXAMINATION; DENTAL SURGERY; DEVICE; FEMALE; FOLLOW UP; HUMAN; LIGHT; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; MATERIALS TESTING; MOLAR TOOTH; STATISTICAL SIGNIFICANCE; SYRINGE; TREATMENT FAILURE; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

CHILD; CHILD, PRESCHOOL; COMPOSITE RESINS; DENTAL BONDING; DENTAL CARIES; DENTAL MATERIALS; DENTAL RESTORATION FAILURE; DENTAL RESTORATION WEAR; DENTAL RESTORATION, PERMANENT; FEMALE; FOLLOW-UP STUDIES; GLASS IONOMER CEMENTS; HUMANS; MALE; METHACRYLATES; MOLAR; RESIN CEMENTS; SOLUBILITY; TOOTH, DECIDUOUS;

EID: 33751574490     PISSN: 00016357     EISSN: 15023850     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/00016350600788245     Document Type: Article

References (22)

1. Buerkle V, Kuehnisch J, Guelmann M, Hickel R. Restoration materials for primary molars - results from a European survey. J Dent 2005;33:275-81.
2. Peutzfeldt A. Compomers and glass ionomers: bond strength to dentin and mechanical properties. Am J Dent 1996;9:259-63.
3. Attin T. Properties of resin-modified glass-ionomer restorative materials and two polyacid-modified resin composite materials. Quint Int 1996;27:203-9.
4. 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;189:93-7.
5. Andersson-Wenckert IE, van Dijken JWV, Stenberg R. Effect of cavity form on the durability of glass ionomer cement restorations in primary teeth: a three-year clinical evaluation. J Dent Child 1995;3:197-200.
6. Kilpatrick NM, Murray JJ, McCabe JF. The use of a reinforced glass-ionomer cermet for the restoration of primary molars: a clinical trial. Br Dent J 1995;179:175-9.
7. Seppä L, Hausen H, Pollanen L, Helasharju K, Karkkainen S. Past caries recording made in Public Cental Clinicas as predictors of caries prevalence in early adolescence. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol 1989;17:277-81.
8. Alanen P, Hurskainen K, Isokangas P, Pietila I, Levanen J, Saarni UM, et al. Clinicians' ability to identify caries risk subjects. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol 1994;22:86-9.
9. Dijken van JWV. A clinical evaluation of anterior conventional microfiller and hybrid composite resin fillings. A six-year follow up. Acta Odontol Scand 1986;44:357-67.
10. Pallesen U, van Dijken JWV. An 8-year evaluation of sintered ceramic and glass ceramic inlays processed by the Cerec CAD/CAM system. Eur J Oral Sci 2000;108:239-46.
11. Attin T, Opatowski A, Meyer C, Zingg-Meyer B, Buchalla W, Monting JS. 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;14:148-52.
12. Hübel S, Mejare I. Conventional versus resin-modified glass-ionomer cement for Class II restorations in primary molars. A 3-year clinical study. Int J Paediatr Dent 2003;13:2-8.
13. Qvist V, Laurberg L, Poulsen A, Teglers PT. Class II restorations in primary teeth: 7-year study on three resin-modified glass ionomer cements and a compomer. Eur J Oral Sci 2004;112:188-96.
14. Mjör IA, Dahl JE, Moorhead JE. Placement and replacement of restorations in primary teeth. Acta Odontol Scand 2002;60:25-8.
15. Qvist V, Laurberg L, Poulsen A, Teglers PT. Eight-year study on conventional glass ionomer and amalgam restorations in primary teeth. Acta Odontol Scand 2004;62:37-45.
16. Marks LAM, Weerheijm KL, van Amerongen WE, Groen HJ, Martens LC. Dyract versus Tytin Class II restorations in primary molars: 36 months evaluation. Caries Res 1999;33:387-92.
17. 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;55:255-60.
18. Kilpatrick NM. Durability of restorations in primary molars. J Dent 1993;21:67-73.
19. Fuks AB, Araujo FB, Osorio LB, Hadani PE, Pinto AS. Clinical and radiographic assessment of Class II esthetic restorations in primary molars. Pediatr Dent 2000;22:479-85.
20. Qvist V, Manscher E, Teglers PT. Resin-modified and conventional glass ionomer restorations in primary teeth: 8-year results. J Dent 2004;32:285-94.
21. de Munck J, Van Landuyt K, Peumans M, Poitevin A, Lambrechts P, Braem M, et al. A critical review of the durability of adhesion. J Dent Res 2005;84:118-32.
22. Dijken van JWV. Durability of three simplified adhesive systems in Class V non-carious cervical dentin lesions. Am J Dent 2004;17:27-32.