Evidence-based assessment of tooth-colored restorations in proximal lesions of primary molars

Pediatric Dentistry

Volumn 29, Issue 1, 2007, Pages 8-15

  Toh, Siew Luan ^a,b,c   Messer, Louise Brearley ^a,d  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MELBOURNE   (Australia)

^b ROYAL CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL   (Australia)

^c National Dental Centre of Singapore   (Singapore)

^d Department of Child Dental Health ^*

Author keywords

Evidence based dentistry; Primary molars; Proximal lesions; Tooth colored restorations

Indexed keywords

BIOMEDICAL AND DENTAL MATERIALS; COMPOMER; GLASS IONOMER; RESIN; RESIN CEMENT;

ARTICLE; CHEMISTRY; CHILD; CLASSIFICATION; CLINICAL TRIAL; COMPARATIVE STUDY; CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL; DECIDUOUS TOOTH; DENTAL SURGERY; EVIDENCE BASED MEDICINE; FOLLOW UP; HUMAN; META ANALYSIS; MOLAR TOOTH; PATHOLOGY; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

CHILD; CLINICAL TRIALS AS TOPIC; COMPOMERS; COMPOSITE RESINS; CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIALS AS TOPIC; DENTAL MATERIALS; DENTAL RESTORATION, PERMANENT; EVIDENCE-BASED MEDICINE; FOLLOW-UP STUDIES; GLASS IONOMER CEMENTS; HUMANS; MOLAR; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIALS AS TOPIC; RESIN CEMENTS; TOOTH, DECIDUOUS; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

EID: 38449111917     PISSN: 01641263     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (40)

1. Evidence-based dentistry. Available at: "http://www.ada.org/prof/ resources/positions/statements/evidence-based.asp". Accessed March 7, 2004.
2. Loh A, O' Hoy P, Tran X, Charles R, Hughes AH, Kubo K, Messer LB. Evidence-based assessment: Evaluation of the formocresol versus ferric sulphate primary molar pulpotomy. Pediatr Dent 2004;26:401-9.
3. Critical Appraisal Skills Programme. Public Health Resource Unit, National Health Service, Oxford, UK. Available at: "http://www.phru.nhs.uk/ casp/casp.htm". Accessed January 24, 2005.
4. US Public Health Service. Adapted from United States Preventive Services Task Force. Guide to Clinical Preventive Services. 2nd ed. Alexandria, Va: International Medical Publishing; 1996.
5. Review Manager (RevMan). Version 4.2 for Windows. Oxford, England: The Cochrane Collaboration; 2002.
6. Simple Interactive Statistical Analysis. Quantitative skills consultancy for research and statistics. Available at: "http://home.clara.net/sisa/ index.htm". Accessed June 13, 2005.
7. OVID database. OVID Technologies Inc. Available at: "http://www. ovid.com". Accessed February 1, 2005.
8. MEDLINE. University of Melbourne Library. Available at: "http://xena.lib.unimelb.edU/cgi-bin/buddy/sss/.4241". Accessed December 7, 2004.
9. Paquette DE, Vann WF Jr, Oldenburg TR, Leinfelder KF. Modified cavity preparations for composite resins in primary molars. Pediatr Dent 1983;5:246-51.
10. Oldenburg TR, Vann WF Jr, Dilley DC. Composite restorations for primary molars: Results after four years. Pediatr Dent 1987;9:136-43.
11. Oldenburg TR, Vann WF Jr., Dilley DC. Comparison of composite and amalgam in posterior teeth of children. Dent Mater 1987;3:182-6.
12. Barr-Agholme M, Oden A, Dahllof G, Modeer T. A. two-year clinical study of light-cured composite and amalgam restorations in primary molars. Dent Mater 1991;7:230-3.
13. Ostlund J, Moller K, Koch G. Amalgam, composite resin, and glass ionomer cement in Class II restorations in primary molars- a three-year clinical evaluation. Swed Dent J 1992;16:81-6.
14. 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.
15. Qvist V, Laurberg L, Poulsen A, Teglers P. 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.
16. Espelid I, Tveit AB, Tornes KH, Alvheim H. Clinical behavior of glass ionomer restorations in primary teeth. J Dent 1999;27:437-42.
17. Marks LA, Weerheijm KL, van Amerongen WE, Groen HJ, Martens LC. Dyract versus Tytin Class II restorations in primary molars: 36-month evaluation. Caries Res 1999;33:387-92-
18. 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.
19. Gross LC, Griffen AL, Casamassimo PS. Compomers as Class II restorations in primary molars. Pediatr Dent 2001;23:24-7.
20. Duggal MS, Toumba KJ, Sharma NK. Clinical performance of a compomer and amalgam for the interproximal restoration of primary molars: A 24-month evaluation. Br Dent J 2002;193:339-42.
21. Hubel S, Mejare I. Conventional versus resin-modified glass ionomer cement for Class II restorations in primary molars. A3-year clinical study. Int J Paediatr Dent 2003;13:2-8.
22. Kavvadia K, Kakaboura A, Vanderas A, Papagiannoulis L. Clinical evaluation of a compomer and an amalgam in primary teeth class II restorations: A2-year comparative study. Pediatr Dent 2004;26:245-50.
23. Fuks AB, Shapira J, BielakS. Clinical evaluation of a glass ionomer cement used as a Class II restorative material in primary molars. J Pedod 1984;8:393-9.
24. Varpio M. Proximoclusal composite restorations in primary molars: A six-year follow-up. J Dent Child
25. Andersson-Wenckert IE, Folkesson UH, van Dijken JW. Durability of a polyacid-modified composite resin (compomer) in primary molars. A multicenter study. Acta Odont Scand 1997;55:255-60.
26. Folkesson UH, Andersson-Wenckert IE, van Dijken JW. Resin-modified glass ionomer cement restorations in primary molars. Swed Dent J 1999;23:1-9.
27. Papagiannoulis L, Kakaboura A, Pantaleon F, Kawadia 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; 21:232-5.
28. Trummler A, Muller D, Weiss V. Clinical experience with a new tooth-colored dental restorative material (Ariston pHc) on primary teeth. Am J Dent 1999;12:S15-6.
29. Rutar J, McAllan L, Tyas MJ. Three-year clinical performance of glass ionomer cement in primary molars. Int J Paediatr Dent 2002;12:146-7.
30. Moher D, Cook D, Eastwood S, Olkin I, Rennie D, Stroup DF. Improving the quality of reports of meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials: The QUORUM statement. Lancet 1999;354:1896-1900.
31. Wilson A, Kent B. A new translucent cement for dentistry. Br Dent J 1972;132:133-5.
32. Attin T, Vataschki M, Hellwig E. Properties of resin-modified glass ionomer restorative materials and two polyacid-modified resin composite materials. Quintessence Int 1996;27:203-9.
33. Burgess J, Barghi N, Chan D, TA H. A comparative study of three glass ionomer base materials. Am J Dent 1993;6:137-41-
34. Gladys S, Van Meerbeek B, Braem M, Lambrechts P, Vanherle G. Comparative physio-mechanical characterization of new hybrid restorative materials with conventional glass ionomer and resin composite restorative materials. J Dent Res 1997;76:883-94.
35. Meyer JM, Cattani-Lorenti MA, Dupuis, V. Compomers: between glass ionomer cements and composites. Biomaterials 1998;19:529-39.
36. Croll T, Nicholson J. Glass ionomer cements in pediatric dentistry: Review of the literature. Pediatr Dent 2002;24:423-9.
37. 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.
38. Marks LA, van Amerongen WE, Borgmeijer PJ, Groen HJ, Martens LC. Ketac Molar Versus Dyract Class II restorations in primary molars: 12-month clinical results. J Dent Child 2000;67:37-41.
39. Cho SY, Cheng AC. A review of glass ionomer restorations in the primary dentition. J Can Dent Assoc 1999;65:491-5.
40. Curzon ME, Pollard MA, Duggal MS. Restoration of primary molars. Br Dent J 1996;180:246.