Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Restorative materials in the primary dentition of poli-caries patients

  • Published:
European Archives of Paediatric Dentistry Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background: Despite an overall caries decline in children, still 50–60% of carious primary teeth of 6-year-olds remain untreated, in 3-year-olds 13%. There are an increasing number of poli-caries patients with insufficiently treated primary teeth. Therefore, early treatment is fundamental. Review: The assessment and indication for the use of restorative materials can be summarized as follows: Glass ionomer cements (GIC) are associated with easy handling and high fluoride release. This makes them attractive especially for Class I cavities in uncooperative children. However, low flexural strength causes high fracture rates in Class II cavities. Further developments (viscous and resin-modified GIC) have improved handling characteristics, but conventional non-resin-modified GIC are still prone to fracture. Compomers exhibit a clear potential as an alternative to amalgam. Long-term results are good even in stress-bearing areas. The compliance of the child should at least last long enough for adhesive application. Resin composites are still the most time-consuming alternative. Under a correct application protocol, resin composites behave in a similar manner to compomers. Therefore, the effort has to be judged individually. Finally, especially in severely decayed teeth and after endodontic treatment, preformed metal crowns should be taken into account as a last and appropriate alternative to direct restorations. Conclusion: Based on the high clinical success rates, compomers with self-etch adhesives can be recommended for restorative therapy in anterior and posterior primary teeth.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Attin T, Opatowski A, Meyer C, et al. 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;14:148–152.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Berg JH. The continuum of restorative materials in pediatric dentistry—a review for the clinician. Pediatr Dent 1990;20:93–100.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burke FJ, Fleming GJ, Owen FJ, Watson DJ. Materials for restoration of primary teeth: 2. Glass ionomer derivatives and compomers. Dent Update 2002;29:10–17.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Burke FM, Hamlin PD, Lynch EJ. Depth of cure of light-cured glass-ionomer cements. Quintessence Int 1990;21:977–980.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Casagrande L, de Hipolito V, de Goes MF, de Araujo FB. Bond strength and interfacial morphology of two adhesive systems to deciduous dentin: in vitro study. J Clin Pediatr Dent 2005;29:317–322.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Croll TP. MagicFil: a colorful kiddie compomer. Compend Contin Educ Dent 2002;23:1044–1048.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • De Araujo FB, Garcia-Godoy F, Issao M. A comparison of three resin bonding agents to primary tooth dentin. Pediatr Dent 1997;19:253–257.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Donly KJ, Segura A, Kanellis M, Erickson RL: Clinical performance and caries inhibition of resin-modified glass ionomer cement and amalgam restorations. J Am Dent Assoc 1999;130:1459–1466.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Duggal MS, Nooh A, High A. Response of the primary pulp to inflammation: a review of the Leeds studies and challenges for the future. Eur J Paediatr Dent 2002;3:111–114.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • El-Kalla IH, Garcia-Godoy F. Bond strength and interfacial micromorphology of compomers in primary and permanent teeth. Int J Paediatr Dent 1998;8:103–114.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • El-Kalla IH, Garcia-Godoy F. Bond strength and interfacial micromorphology of four adhesive systems in primary and permanent molars. ASDC J Dent Child 1998;65:169–176.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • El-Kalla IH. Marginal adaptation of compomers in Class I and V cavities in primary molars. Am J Dent 1999;12:37–43.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Elkins CJ, McCourt JW. Bond strength of dentinal adhesives in primary teeth. Quintessence Int 1993;24:271–273.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Ernst CP, Weckmüller C, Willershausen B. Primary tooth build-ups using compomers. Schweiz Monatsschr Zahnmed 1995;105:665–671.

    Google Scholar 

  • Espelid I, Tveit AB, Tomes KH, Alvheim H. Clinical behaviour of glass ionomer restorations in primary teeth. J Dent 1999;27:437–442.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Frankenberger R, Sindel J, Krämer N, Petschelt A. Bond strength of different classes of adhesives with enamel and dentin of the first and second dentition. Dtsch Zahnärztl Z 1997;52:795–799.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frankenberger R, Krämer N, Graf A, Petschelt A. Cyclic fatigue of different glass ionomers and compomers. Dtsch Zahnärztl Z 1999a;54:269–271.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frankenberger R, Krämer N, Petschelt A. Bond strength of different adhesives to caries-affected primary dentin. Dtsch Zahnärztl Z 1999b;54:455–458.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fritz U, Garcia-Godoy F, Finger WJ. Enamel and dentin bond strength and bonding mechanism to dentin of Gluma CPS to primary teeth. ASDC J Dent Child 1997;64:32–38.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Garcia-Godoy F, Gwinnett AJ. Effect of etching times and mechanical pretreatment on the enamel of primary teeth: an SEM study. Am J Dent 1991;4:115–118.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Garcia-Godoy F, Hosoya Y. Bonding mechanism of Compoglass to dentin in primary teeth. J Clin Pediatr Dent 1998;22:217–220.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Garcia-Godoy F. Resin-based composites and compomers in primary molars. Dent Clin North Am 2000;44:541–570.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Gwinnett AJ, Garcia-Godoy F: Effect of etching time and acid concentration on resin shear bond strength to primary tooth enamel. Am J Dent 1992;5:237–239.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hickel R, Kaaden C, Paschos E, et al. Longevity of occlusally-stressed restorations in posterior primary teeth. Am J Dent 2005;18:198–211.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hosoya Y. The effect of acid etching times on ground primary enamel. J Clin Pediatr Dent 1991;15:188–194.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hubel 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kilpatrick NM. Durability of restorations in primary molars. J Dent 1993;21:67–73.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kodaka T, Nakajima F, Higashi S. Structure of the so-called ‘prismless’ enamel in human deciduous teeth. Caries Res 1989;23:290–296.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Krämer N, Frankenberger R: Clinical performance of a condensable metalreinforced glass ionomer cement in primary molars. Br Dent J 2001;190:317–321.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kupietzky A, Waggoner WE, Galea J. Long-term photographic and radiographic assessment of bonded resin composite strip crowns for primary incisors: results after 3 years. Pediatr Dent 2005;27:221–225.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Lee BB, White GE. Chamfered margin effects on occlusal microleakage of primary molar Class I composite resin restorations in vitro. J Clin Pediatr Dent 1998;22:113–116.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Malferrari S, Finger WJ, Garcia-Godoy F. Resin bonding efficacy of Gluma 2000 to dentine of primary teeth: an in vitro study. Int J Paediatr Dent 1995;5:73–79.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Mazzeo N, Ott NW, Hondrum SO. Resin bonding to primary teeth using three adhesive systems. Pediatr Dent 1995;17:112–115.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Marks LA, Weerheijm KL, van Amerongen WE, Groen HJ, Martens LC. Dyract versus Tytin Class II restorations in primary molars: 36 months evaluation. Caries Res 1999;33:387–392.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Mjor IA, Dahl JE, Moorhead JE: Placement and replacement of restorations in primary teeth. Acta Odontol Scand2002;60:25–28.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Mortada A, King NM. A simplified technique for the restoration of severely mutilated primary anterior teeth. J Clin Pediatr Dent 2004;28:187–192.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Nor JE, Feigal RJ, Dennison JB, Edwards CA. Dentin bonding: SEM comparison of the resin-dentin interface in primary and permanent teeth. J Dent Res 1996;75:1396–1403.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Nor JE, Feigal RJ, Dennison JB, Edwards CA. Dentin bonding: SEM comparison of the dentin surface in primary and permanent teeth. Pediatr Dent 1997;19:246–252.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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;16:81–86.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Pascon FM, Kantovitz KR, Caldo-Teixeira AS, et al. Clinical evaluation of composite and compomer restorations in primary teeth: 24-month results. J Dent 2006;34:381–388.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Pashley DH, Tay FR, Yiu C, et al. Collagen degradation by host-derived enzymes during aging. J Dent Res 2004;83:216–221.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Perdigao J, Swift EJ Jr., Denehy GE, Wefel JS, Donly KJ. In vitro bond strengths and SEM evaluation of dentin bonding systems to different dentin substrates. J Dent Res 1994;73:44–55.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Perdigao J, van Meerbeek B, Lopes MM, Ambrose WW. The effect of a rewetting agent on dentin bonding. Dent Mater 1999;15:282–295.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Pieper K. Epidemiological assessment in group prophylaxis 2004. Deutsche Arbeitsgemeinschaft für Jugendzahnpflege, 2005.

  • 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 2004a;112:188–196.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Qvist V, Manscher E, Teglers, PT. Resin-modified and conventional glass ionomer restorations in primary teeth: 8-year results. J Dent 2004b;32:285–294.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Reichl FX, Durner J, Kehe K, et al. Toxicokinetic of HEMA in guinea pigs. J Dent 2002;30:353–358.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Ripa LW, Gwinnett AJ, Buonocore MG. The “prismless” outer layer of deciduous and permanent enamel. Arch Oral Biol 1966;11:41–48.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Roeters JJ. Frankenmolen F, Burgersdijk RC, Peters TC: Clinical evaluation of Dyract in primary molars: 3-year results. Am J Dent 1998; 11:143–148.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Roulet JF. A clinical comparison of three composites with amalgam. Zahnärtl Welt 1977;86:1055–1062.

    Google Scholar 

  • Royse MC, Ott NW, Mathieu GP. Dentin adhesive superior to copal varnish in preventing microleakage in primary teeth. Pediatr Dent 1996;18:440–443.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Sardella TN, de Castro FL, Sanabe ME, Hebling J. Shortening of primary dentin etching time and its implication on bond strength. J Dent 2005;33:355–362.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Smutka S, Jedrychowski J, Caputo A. An evaluation of primary enamel pretreatments and their effects on resin retention. J Dent Res 1978;57:796–799.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Staehle HJ, Koch MJ. Paediatric dentistry. Cologne: Deutscher Ärzte-Verlag, 1996.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sumikawa DA, Marshall GW, Gee L, Marshall SJ. Microstructure of primary tooth dentin. Pediatr Dent 1999;21:439–444.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Tran LA, Messer LB: Clinicians’ choices of restorative materials for children. Aust Dent J 2003;48:221–232.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Turgut MD, Tekcicek M, Olmez S. Clinical evaluation of a polyacid-modified resin composite under different conditioning methods in primary teeth. Oper Dent 2004;29:515–523.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Varpio M, Warfvinge J, Noren JG. Proximo-occlusal composite restorations in primary molars: marginal adaptation, bacterial penetration, and pulpal reactions. Acta Odontol Scand 1990;48:161–167.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Whittaker DK. Structural variations in the surface zone of human tooth enamel observed by scanning electron microscopy. Arch Oral Biol 1982;27:383–392.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Dept Paediatric Dentistry, University Medical Centre Carl Gustav Cams, Fetscherstrasse 74, D-01307, Dresden, Germany

    Norbert Krämer

  2. Dental Clinic 1: Operative Dentistry, Periodontology and Paediatric Dentistry, University Medical Centre, Erlangen, Germany

    U. Lohbauer & R. Frankenberger

Authors
  1. Norbert Krämer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. U. Lohbauer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. R. Frankenberger
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Norbert Krämer.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Krämer, N., Lohbauer, U. & Frankenberger, R. Restorative materials in the primary dentition of poli-caries patients. Eur Arch Paediatr Dent 8, 29–35 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03262567

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03262567

Key words

Search

Navigation