Journal of Dentistry
Volume 34, Issue 6 , Pages 381-388 , July 2006

Clinical evaluation of composite and compomer restorations in primary teeth: 24-month results

  • Fernanda Miori Pascon

      Affiliations

    • Pediatric Dentistry Piracicaba Dental School, University of Campinas, Piracicaba, São Paulo, Brazil
    • ,
  • Kamila Rosamilia Kantovitz

      Affiliations

    • Pediatric Dentistry Piracicaba Dental School, University of Campinas, Piracicaba, São Paulo, Brazil
    • ,
  • Angela Scarparo Caldo-Teixeira

      Affiliations

    • Pediatric Dentistry, Federal University of Santa Catarina, Florianópolis, Santa Catarina, Brazil
    • ,
  • Ana Flávia Sanches Borges

      Affiliations

    • Dental Material, Piracicaba Dental School, University of Campinas, Piracicaba, São Paulo, Brazil
    • ,
  • Tatiana Nunes Silva

      Affiliations

    • DDS, Brazil
    • ,
  • Regina Maria Puppin-Rontani

      Affiliations

    • Pediatric Dentistry, Piracicaba Dental School, University of Campinas, Piracicaba, Avenida Limeira, 901-Caixa Postal 52, 13414-900 Piracicaba, São Paulo, Brazil
    • Corresponding Author InformationCorresponding author. Tel.: +55 19 3412 5286; fax: +55 19 3412 5218.
    web address
    • ,
  • Franklin Garcia-Godoy

      Affiliations

    • Clinical Research Center, College of Dental Medicine, Nova Southeastern University, Fort Lauderdale, FL, USA

Received 16 June 2005 ,Revised 23 August 2005 ,Accepted 30 August 2005.

References 

  1. Berg JH. The continuum of restorative materials in pediatric dentistry — a review for the clinician. Pediatric Dentistry. 1998;20:93–100
  2. Fleming GJP, Burke FJ, Watson DJ, Owen FJ. Materials for restoration of primary teeth: I conventional materials and early glass ionomers. Dental Update. 2001;28:486–491
  3. Burke FJ, Fleming GJP, Owen FJ, Watson DJ. Materials for restoration of primary teeth: II glass ionomers derivates and compomers. Dental Update. 2002;29:10–17
  4. Hse KMY, Leung SK, Wei SHY. Resin-ionomer restorative materials for children: a review. Australian Dental Journal. 1999;44:1–11
  5. Garcia-Godoy F. Resin-based composites and compomers in primary molars. Dental Clinics of North America. 2000;44:541–570
  6. National Health and Medicine Research Council. Dental Amalgam and Mercury in Dentistry: A report of a NHMRC working party. 1999;[Canberra]
  7. 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. European Journal of Oral Sciences. 2004;112:188–196
  8. Tran LA, Messer LB. Clinicians' choices of restorative materials for children. Australian Dental Journal. 2003;48:221–232
  9. Gross LC, Griffen AL, Casamassimo PS. Compomers as class II restorations in primary molars. Pediatric Dentistry. 2001;23:24–27
  10. Mount GJ. Glass ionomers: a review of their current status. Operative Dentistry. 1999;24:115–124
  11. Lutz F. State of the art of tooth-colored restoratives. Operative Dentistry. 1996;21:237–248
  12. Turgut MD, Tekcicek M, Olmez S. Clinical evaluation of a polyacid-modified resin composite under different conditioning methods in primary teeth. Operative Dentistry. 2004;29:515–523
  13. Knibbs PJ. Methods of clinical evaluation of dental restorative materials. Journal of Oral Rehabilitation. 1997;24:109–123
  14. Roeters J, Frankenmolen F, Burgersdijk R, Peters T. Clinical evaluation of dyract in primary molars: three-year results. American Journal of Dentistry. 1998;11:143–148
  15. Papagiannoulis L, Kakaboura A, Pantaleon F, Kavvadia K. Clinical evaluation of a polyacid-modified resin composite (compomer) in class II restoration of a primary teeth: a two year follow-up study. Pediatric Dentistry. 1999;21:231–234
  16. Marks LA, van Amerongen WE, Borgmeijer PJ, Groen HJ, Martens LC. Ketac molar versus dyract class II restorations in primary molars: twelve month clinical results. Journal of Dental Child. 2000;67:37–41[see also 8–9]
  17. Kavvadia K, Kakaboura A, Vanderas AP, Papagiannoulis L. Clinical evaluation of a compomer and amalgam primary teeth class II restorations: a 2-year comparative study. Pediatric Dentistry. 2004;26:245–250
  18. Tonn EM, Ryge G. Clinical evaluation of composite resin restorations in primary molars: a 4-year follow-up study. Journal of American Dental Association. 1988;117:603–606
  19. Duggal MS, Toumba KJ, Sharma NK. Clinical performance of a compomer and amalgam for the interproximal restoration of primary molars: a 24-month evaluation. British Dental Journal. 2002;193:339–342
  20. Mount GJ. An atlas of glass-ionomer cements, 2. London: Martin Dunitz; 1994;
  21. DeTrey dentsplay, Technical brochure for dyract AP, 1997.
  22. Cunha MRB. Evaluation of wear abrasion of restorative materials and primary enamel. [PhD Thesis] Piracicaba Dental School. University of Campinas — Unicamp (Portuguese), 2003.
  23. Tyas MJ. Clinical evaluation of a polyacid-modified resin composite (compomer). Operative Dentistry. 1998;23:77–80
  24. 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. British Dental Journal. 2000;189:93–97
  25. Hse KM, Wei SH. Clinical evaluation of compomer in primary teeth: one-year results. Journal of American Dental Association. 1997;128:1088–1096
  26. Marks LA, Weerheijim KL, van Amerongen WE, Groen HJ, Martens LC. Dyract versus tytin class II restorations in primary molars: 36 months' evaluation. Caries Research. 1999;33:387–392
  27. Mass E, Gordon M, Fuks AB. Assessment of compomer proximal restorations in primary molars: a retrospective study in children. Journal of Dental Child. 1999;66:93–97

PII: S0300-5712(05)00165-X

doi: 10.1016/j.jdent.2005.08.003

Journal of Dentistry
Volume 34, Issue 6 , Pages 381-388 , July 2006

Article Tools