Advertisement

European Archives of Paediatric Dentistry

, Volume 19, Issue 1, pp 39–45 | Cite as

Clinical assessment of class II resin-based composites versus preformed metal crowns performed on primary molars in patients at high risk of caries

  • A. Alyahya
  • A. Khanum
  • M. Qudeimat
Original Scientific Article
  • 185 Downloads

Abstract

Aim

To compare class II resin composite with preformed metal crowns (PMC) in the treatment of proximal dentinal caries in high caries-risk patients.

Methods

The charts (270) of paediatric patients with proximal caries of their primary molars were reviewed. Success or failure of a procedure was assessed using the dental notes. Survival analysis was used to calculate the mean survival time (MST) for both procedures. The influence of variables on the mean survival time was investigated.

Results

A total of 593 class II resin composites and 243 PMCs were placed in patients ranging between 4–13 years of age. The failure percentage of class II resin composites was 22.6% with the majority having been due to recurrent caries, while the failure percentage of PMCs was 15.2% with the majority due to loss of the crown. There was no significant difference between the MST of class II resin composites and PMCs, 41.3 and 45.6 months respectively (p value = 0.06). In class II resin composites, mesial restorations were associated with lower MST compared to distal restorations (p-value < 0.001).

Conclusions

The MST of resin composites and PMCs were comparable when performed on high caries-risk patients.

Keywords

Children Class II resin-based composites Preformed metal crowns Primary molars Caries-risk Survival time 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Funding

This study was not funded.

Ethical approval

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.

Informed consent

For this type of study formal consent is not required

Conflict of interest

Author Alyahya declares that she has no conflict of interest. Author Khanum declares that she has no conflict of interest. Author Qudeimat declares that he has no conflict of interest. AA conceived and designed the study, developed data extraction forms, validated forms, extracted data, and wrote the manuscript; AK identified subjects and records and entered data; MQ helped in designing the study, developing data extraction forms, forms validation, analysed data and reviewed and edited manuscript.

References

  1. Atieh M. Stainless steel crown versus modified open-sandwich restorations for primary molars: a 2-year randomized clinical trial. Int J Paediatr Dent. 2008;18:325–32.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Attari N, Roberts JF. Restoration of primary teeth with crowns: a systematic review of the literature. Eur Arch Paediatr Dent. 2006;7:58–62.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 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;14:148–52.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Belduz Kara N, Yilmaz Y. Assessment of oral hygiene and periodontal health around posterior primary molars after their restoration with various crown types. Int J Paediatr Dent. 2014;24:303–13.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Bernardo M, Luis H, Martin MD, et al. Survival and reasons for failure of amalgam versus composite posterior restorations placed in a randomized clinical trial. J Am Dent Assoc. 2007;138:775–83.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Chambers D. Learning curves: what do dental students learn from repeated practice of clinical procedures? J Dent Educ. 2012;76:291–302.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Curzon MEJ, Toumba KJ. Restoration of primary teeth: clinical criteria for assessment of the literature. Eur Arch Paediatr Dent. 2006;1:48–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cutler SJ, Ederer F. Maximum utilization of the life table method in analyzing survival. J Chronic Dis. 1958;8:699–712.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Dawson AS, Smales RJ. The influence of examination frequency and changing dentist on dental treatment provision in an Australian defence force population. Br Dent J. 1992;173:237–41.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Drake CW. A comparison of restoration longevity in maxillary and mandibular teeth. J Am Dent Assoc. 1988;116:651–4.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 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;3:111–4.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Friedman LM, Furberg CD, DeMets DL. Survival analysis. In: Fundamentals of clinical trials. 4th ed. New York: Springer Science + Business Media, LLC; 2010. p. 269–91.Google Scholar
  14. 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.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Hutcheson C, Seale NS, McWhorter A, Kerins C, Wright J. Multi-surface composite vs stainless steel crown restorations after mineral trioxide aggregate pulpotomy: a randomized controlled trial. Pediatr Dent. 2012;34:460–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Kindelan SADP, Nichol R, Willmott N, Fayle SA. UK National Clinical Guidelines in Paediatric Dentistry: stainless steel preformed crowns for primary molars. Int J Paediatr Dent. 2008;18(Suppl 1):20–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Krämer N, Lohbauer U, Frankenberger R. Restorative materials in the primary dentition of poli-caries patients. Eur Arch Paediatr Dent. 2007;8:29–35.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 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;27:221–5.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Mjor IA, Dahl JE, Moorhead JE. Age of restorations at replacement in permanent teeth in general dental practice. Acta Odontol Scand. 2000;58:97–101.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. O’Sullivan EA, Curzon ME. The efficacy of comprehensive dental care for children under general anesthesia. Br Dent J. 1991;171:56–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Papathanasiou AG, Curzon ME, Fairpo CG. The influence of restorative material on the survival rate of restorations in primary molars. Pediatr Dent. 1994;16:282–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Ram D, Fuks AB, Eidelman E. Long-term clinical performance of esthetic primary molar crowns. Pediatr Dent. 2003;25:582–4.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Ricketts DN, Kidd EA, Innes N, Clarkson J. Complete or ultraconservative removal of decayed tissue in unfilled teeth. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2006;3:CD003808.Google Scholar
  24. Ricketts D, Lamont T, Innes NP, Kidd E, Clarkson JE. Operative caries management in adults and children. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013;3:CD003808.Google Scholar
  25. Roberts JF, Attari N, Sherriff M. The survival of resin modified glass ionomer and stainless steel crown restorations in primary molars, placed in a specialist paediatric dental practice. Br Dent J. 2005;198:427–31.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Savide NL, Caputo AA, Luke LS. The effect of tooth preparation on the retention of stainless steel crowns. ASDC J Dent Child. 1979;46:385–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Seale NS, Randall R. The use of stainless steel crowns: a systematic literature review. Pediatr Dent. 2015;37:145–60.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Shen C. Dental cements. In: Anusavice KJ, Shen C, Rawls HR, editors. Phillips’ science of dental materials. 12th ed. Missouri: Saunders, Elsevier Inc; 2013. p. 307–39.Google Scholar
  29. Tate AR, Ng MW, Needleman HL, Acs G. Failure rates of restorative procedures following dental rehabilitation under general anesthesia. Pediatr Dent. 2002;24:69–71.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Varpio M. Proximoclusal composite restorations in primary molars: a six-year follow-up. ASDC J Dent Child. 1985;52:435–40.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Wong FS, Day SJ. An investigation of factors influencing the longevity of restorations in primary molars. J Int Assoc Dent Child. 1990;20:11–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© European Academy of Paediatric Dentistry 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Developmental and Preventive Sciences, Faculty of DentistryKuwait UniversitySafatKuwait

Personalised recommendations