Clinical Performance of Indirect Composite Onlays as Esthetic Alternative to Stainless Steel Crowns for Rehabilitation of a Large Carious Primary Molar

Objective: The aim of the present study was to evaluate the clinical performance of indirect resin composite onlays (IRC onlay) compared to stainless steel crowns (SSCs), as an esthetic alternative for rehabilitation of extensively carious primary molars. Study design: Fifty pediatric patients each received either IRC onlay or SSC randomly on extensively carious endodontically treated primary molars. All the restorations were evaluated at baseline and then every 6 months till 36 months using ‘modified FDI criteria’ for retention, marginal integrity, occlusion, proximal contact, secondary caries and gingival health. The dental chair side treatment time and post-operative acceptability were also evaluated for both the groups. Results: The cumulative survival rate of IRC onlays was 82.9% compared to 90.7% for SSCs over a time period of 36 months. The difference between the two study groups at various time intervals in terms of retention, marginal integrity, secondary caries, proximal contact, occlusion and gingival health was not statistically significant (p>0.05). The IRC onlays required significantly less mean chair side treatment time and were preferred the most by parents and children as per VAS scores compared to SSCs. Conclusion: IRC onlays are an acceptable esthetic alternative to SSCs and may be considered for use in aesthetically conscious children/parents as per their preference.

Download Full-text

Clinical Performance of Two Types of Primary Molar Indirect Crowns Fabricated by 3D Printer and CAD/CAM for Rehabilitation of Large Carious Primary Molars

European Journal of Dentistry ◽

10.1055/s-0040-1721905 ◽

2021 ◽

Author(s):

Mohammed Nour Al-Halabi ◽

Nada Bshara ◽

Jihad Abou Nassar ◽

John C. Comisi ◽

Charline K. Rizk

Keyword(s):

Survival Rate ◽

Computer Aided Design ◽

Clinical Performance ◽

Primary Molars ◽

Primary Molar ◽

Marginal Integrity ◽

Gingival Health ◽

Cad Cam ◽

Restoration Failure

Abstract Objectives This randomized clinical trial aimed to evaluate clinical outcomes of two types of esthetic crowns fabricated using a three-dimensional (3D) dental printer and computer-aided design and manufacturing (CAD/CAM) system as an alternative full-coronal restoration for extensively carious pulp-treated primary molars. Materials and Methods Randomization was done for 50 lower primary molars in 50 child patients, split into two groups based on the fabrication method used: Group A: CAD/CAM crowns using polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA) blocks and Group B: 3D dental printed crowns using GC photopolymer resin. All crowns were evaluated at baseline and at 3rd, 6th, and 12th months using the U.S. Public Health Service criteria for gingival health, retention, and marginal integrity for both groups. Statistical Analysis The survival rate of 3D-printable crowns was 84% compared with 80% survival rate using CAD/CAM fabricated crowns at the end of the 12th-month follow-up. No statistically significant differences were noted in restoration failure. In the evaluation of gingival health between the two groups’ follow-up times, no statistically significant differences were noted at the 3rd- and 6th-month follow-ups, yet at the 12th month, statistically significant differences were noted (p = 0.022) when comparing gingival health. No statistically significant differences were noted between the two groups when comparing marginal integrity scores in all the follow-up periods. Conclusion Resin crowns fabricated via 3D dental printer and PMMA crowns fabricated using CAD/CAM are acceptable esthetic choices in restoring pulp-treated primary molars with great marginal integrity and crowns retention. 3D-printed resin crowns showed less cementing failure and performed better regarding gingival response compared with PMMA crowns.

Download Full-text

Fixed Space Maintainers Combined with Open-Face Stainless Steel Crowns

The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice ◽

10.5005/jcdp-7-2-95 ◽

2006 ◽

Vol 7 (2) ◽

pp. 95-103 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

Yucel Yilmax ◽

M. Elcin Kocoguliari ◽

Nihal Beiduz

Keyword(s):

Stainless Steel ◽

Clinical Performance ◽

Resin Composite ◽

Observation Time ◽

Primary Molar ◽

Lower Jaw ◽

Molar Teeth ◽

Abutment Teeth ◽

Fixed Space ◽

Open Face

Abstract Objective This study investigates the clinical performance of fixed space maintainers placed on seriously damaged abutment teeth. Methods Crowns were placed on damaged abutment primary teeth. Fixed space maintainers were prepared by using rectangular wire between the window in the facial surface of the crowns and other abutment teeth and were subsequently bonded with a flowable resin composite. This procedure was introduced clinically, and the cases were observed over a period of twelve months. Results Twenty-seven fixed space maintainers (25 on lower jaw, two on upper jaw) were included in this study. No clinical failure was recorded in any of the cases in the observation time, and the rate of clinical performance was 100%. Conclusion The study shows the effectiveness of fixed space maintainers combined with stainless steel crowns (“open-face fixed space maintainers”) which were placed on primary molar teeth used as abutments in cases with extensive caries and loss of occlusogingival dimension. Citation Yilmaz Y, Kocogullari ME, Belduz N. Fixed Space Maintainers Combined with open-face Stainless Steel Crowns. J Contemp Dent Pract 2006 May;(7)2:095-103.

Download Full-text

Survival Rates of Class II Restoration in Primary Molar with Flowable Resin Composite

THE JOURNAL OF THE KOREAN ACADEMY OF PEDTATRIC DENTISTRY ◽

10.5933/jkapd.2021.48.1.12 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 48 (1) ◽

pp. 12-20

Author(s):

Hyejun Seo ◽

Soyoung Park ◽

Eungyung Lee ◽

Taesung Jeong ◽

Jonghyun Shin

Keyword(s):

Stainless Steel ◽

Survival Rate ◽

Resin Composite ◽

Survival Rates ◽

Class Ii ◽

Primary Molars ◽

Primary Molar ◽

Proximal Caries ◽

Kaplan Meier ◽

Significant Difference

The purpose of this retrospective study was to evaluate the survival rate by comparing Class II restoration using flowable resin composite with stainless steel crown in primary molars.Electronic medical records and radiographs of 1,504 primary molars with proximal caries of 590 patients from June 2015 to August 2019 were analyzed. With the collected data, survival analysis was performed using the Kaplan-Meier method.The 1-year survival rate of flowable resin composite in the primary molar was 98.5%, 3-year survival rate was 87.7%, and mean survival time was 39 months. There was no statistically significant difference between flowable resin composite and stainless steel crown (<i>p</i> = 0.896).Within the limits of this study, Class II restoration using flowable resin composite can be considered a promising option for the treatment of proximal caries in primary molars.

Download Full-text

Comparative evaluation on clinical success rate of prefabricated zirconia crowns and stainless steel crowns in primary molars

International Journal of Oral Health Dentistry ◽

10.18231/j.ijohd.2021.036 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 7 (3) ◽

pp. 180-186

Author(s):

A. K. Harshitha ◽

H. T. Ajay Rao ◽

K. Sundeep Hegde ◽

Sharan S. Sargod ◽

Shrivya Saloni Mahaveeran ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Stainless Steel ◽

Success Rate ◽

Statistical Difference ◽

Clinical Success ◽

Clinical Success Rate ◽

Primary Molars ◽

Type I ◽

Marginal Integrity ◽

Gingival Health ◽

Zirconia Crowns

To compare the clinical success rate of Prefabricated Zirconia crowns and stainless steel crowns on primary molars: It is an in-vivo study which was performed on 52 pulpally treated primary molars of children aged 4–9 years were randomly divided into two equal groups of stainless steel crown and Prefabricated Zirconia crowns. Tooth preparation was done according to the manufacturer’s recommendations and crowns were cemented. All crowns were cemented with Type I Glass ionomer cement (GIC) luting cement. Crowns were evaluated clinically for its crown retention, marginal integrity and gingival health at 3 months and 6 months.: Clinical success for stainless steel crowns and Prefabricated Zirconia crowns towards crown retention and marginal integrity were similar with no statistical difference between them. All Prefabricated Zirconia crowns showed healthy gingiva whereas 53.8% (14 out of 26) Stainless Steel crowns showed mild gingival inflammation at 3 and 6 months which was statistically significant (P ≤0.01). Both prefabricated zirconia and stainless steel crowns showed no statistical difference for crown retention and marginal integrity throughout the study. Gingival health was significantly higher for Prefabricated Zirconia crowns compared with stainless steel crowns. Therefore clinical success rate for Prefabricated Zirconia crowns were better when compared to stainless steel crowns. So Prefabricated Zirconia crowns can be considered as an esthetic alternative in future.

Download Full-text

Direct Resin Composite Restorations versus Indirect Composite Inlays: One-Year Results

The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice ◽

10.5005/jcdp-11-3-25 ◽

2010 ◽

Vol 11 (3) ◽

pp. 25-32 ◽

Cited By ~ 12

Author(s):

Juliano Sartori Mendonça ◽

José Roberto Pereira Lauris ◽

Maria Fidela de Lima Navarro ◽

Ranulfo Gianordoli Neto ◽

Sérgio Lima Santiago ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Surface Texture ◽

Clinical Performance ◽

Resin Composite ◽

Color Match ◽

Secondary Caries ◽

Composite Restorations ◽

Marginal Integrity ◽

Indirect Composite ◽

One Year ◽

Composite Inlays

Abstract Aim The aim of this study was to evaluate the clinical performance of direct resin composite restorations (Tetric Ceram-TC) and indirect composite inlays (Targis-TG) after 12 months. Methods and Materials Seventy-six Class I and II restorations (44 direct and 32 indirect) were inserted in premolars and molars with carious lesions or deficient restorations in 30 healthy patients according to the manufacturer's instructions. Each restoration was evaluated at baseline and after 12 months according to the modified USPHS criteria for color match (CM), marginal discoloration (MD), secondary caries (SC), anatomic form (AF), surface texture (ST), marginal integrity (MI), and pulp sensitivity (PS). Data were analyzed by Fisher and McNemar Chisquare tests. Results No secondary caries and no pulpal sensitivity were observed after 12 months. However, significant changes in marginal discoloration (MD) criteria could be detected between baseline and one-year results for both materials (p<0.05). For marginal integrity (MI) criteria, the differences between baseline and oneyear recall were statistically significant (p<0.05). For marginal integrity (MI) criteria, Tetric Ceram (TC) showed results statistically superior to Targis (TG) in both observation periods (p<0.05). No statistically significant changes in color match (CM), anatomic form (AF), or surface texture (ST) appeared during the observation periods (p>0.05). Conclusions Direct resin composite restorations performed better than indirect composite inlays for marginal integrity, but all restorations were judged to be clinically acceptable. Clinical Significance Tetric Ceram direct restorations and Targis indirect inlays in posterior teeth provide satisfactory clinical performance and the comparison between them showed little difference after one year. Citation Mendonça JS, Neto RG, Santiago SL, Lauris JRP, Navarro MFL, Carvalho RM. Direct Resin Composite Restorations versus Indirect Composite Inlays: One-Year Results. J Contemp Dent Pract [Internet]. 2010 May; 11(3):025-032. Available from: http://www.thejcdp.com/journal/ view/volume11-issue3-santiago.

Download Full-text

A Retrospective Clinical Study of Cervical Restorations: Longevity and Failure-Prognostic Variables

Operative Dentistry ◽

10.2341/11-416-c ◽

2013 ◽

Vol 38 (4) ◽

pp. 376-385 ◽

Cited By ~ 6

Author(s):

C Namgung ◽

YJ Rho ◽

BH Jin ◽

BS Lim ◽

BH Cho

Keyword(s):

Clinical Study ◽

Clinical Performance ◽

Resin Composite ◽

United States Public Health ◽

Wald Test ◽

Fisher Exact Test ◽

Prognostic Variables ◽

Secondary Caries ◽

Retrospective Clinical Study ◽

Usphs Criteria

SUMMARY The aim of this retrospective clinical study was to compare the longevity of cervical restorations between resin composite (RC) and glass ionomer (GI) and to investigate variables predictive of their outcome. The clinical performance of the two restorative materials in function was compared using the ratings of the modified United States Public Health Service (USPHS) criteria. A total of 479 cervical restorations were included in the study. Ninety-one already-replaced restorations were reviewed from dental records. The other 388 restorations still in function were evaluated according to the modified USPHS criteria by two investigators. Longevity and prognostic variables were analyzed with the Kaplan-Meier survival analysis and multivariate Cox proportional hazard model. The clinical performances of the two materials were evaluated according to the ratings of the USPHS criteria and compared using the Pearson chi-square test and Fisher exact test. The longevity was not significantly different between RC and GI (median survival time, 10.4 ± 0.7 and 11.5 ± 1.1 years, respectively). The main reasons for failure were loss of retention (82.2%) and secondary caries (17.8%). The longevity of cervical restoration was significantly influenced by tooth group and operator group (Wald test, p<0.05), while material, gender, presence or absence of systemic diseases, arch, and reason for treatment did not affect the longevity. Contrary to the longevity, the clinical performance of RC was superior to GI in the criteria of retention, marginal discoloration, and marginal adaptation, but similar in secondary caries, wear, and postoperative sensitivity.

Download Full-text

Clinical evaluation of fiber-reinforced composite crowns in pulp-treated primary molars: 12-month results

European Journal of Dentistry ◽

10.4103/1305-7456.195177 ◽

2016 ◽

Vol 10 (04) ◽

pp. 522-528 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

Zahra Mohammadzadeh ◽

Iman Parisay ◽

Maryam Mehrabkhani ◽

Azam Sadat Madani ◽

Fatemeh Mazhari

Keyword(s):

Retention Rate ◽

United States Public Health ◽

Retention Rates ◽

Fiber Reinforced ◽

Secondary Caries ◽

Fiber Reinforced Composite ◽

Marginal Integrity ◽

Reinforced Composite ◽

Gingival Health ◽

Significant Difference

ABSTRACT Objective: The aim of this study was to evaluate the clinical performance of tooth-colored fiber-reinforced composite (FRC) crowns in pulp-treated second primary mandibular teeth. Materials and Methods: This split-mouth randomized, clinical trial performed on 67 children between 3 and 6 years with two primary mandibular second molars requiring pulp treatment. After pulp therapy, the teeth were randomly assigned to stainless steel crown (SSC) or FRC crown groups. Modified United States Public Health Service criteria were used to evaluate marginal integrity, marginal discoloration, and secondary caries in FRC crowns at intervals of 3, 6, and 12 months. Retention rate and gingival health were also compared between the two groups. The data were analyzed using Friedman, Cochran, and McNemar's tests at a significance level of 0.05. Results: Intact marginal integrity in FRC crowns at 3, 6, and 12 months were 93.2%, 94.8%, and 94.2%, respectively. Marginal discoloration and secondary caries were not found at any of the FRC crowns. The retention rates of the FRC crowns were 100%, 98.3%, and 89.7% at 3, 6 and 12 months, respectively, whereas all the SSCs were found to be present and intact after 12 months (P = 0.016). There was no statistically significant difference between the two groups in gingival health. Conclusion: According to the results of this study, it seems that when esthetics is a concern, in cooperative patients with good oral hygiene, FRC crowns can be considered as a valuable procedure.

Download Full-text

Flowable Bulk-Fill Materials Compared to Nano Ceramic Composites for Class I Cavities Restorations in Primary Molars: A Two-Year Prospective Case-Control Study

Dentistry Journal ◽

10.3390/dj7040094 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 7 (4) ◽

pp. 94

Author(s):

Maria Sarapultseva ◽

Alexey Sarapultsev

Keyword(s):

Ceramic Composite ◽

Clinical Performance ◽

Statistical Significance ◽

Ceramic Composites ◽

Class I ◽

Primary Molars ◽

Primary Molar ◽

Ethical Approval ◽

Control Study

Background: The aim of this split-mouth study is to compare the results of 24 months’ clinical performance of primary molar Class I restorations with a nano-ceramic composite, Ceram•X mono (Dentsply) with a flowable bulk-fill material regular viscosity, SDR (Dentsply). Methods: Following the ethical approval, 27 patients with at least two class I cavities in primary molars were included in the study. A total number of 54 restorations were conducted (n = 27 for Ceram X and n = 27 for SDR). Restorations were evaluated at baseline, 6, 18, and 24 months, according to the modified Ryge criteria. The cavosurface marginal discoloration and color match were evaluated visually after air-drying the tooth and after removing the plaque (if necessary). Results: At 24 months’ follow-up, 54 restorations showed similar clinical performance. The statistical analysis did not reveal any statistical significance in the values between the groups in 7 out of 7 modified Ryge criteria. However, two restorations in both groups received Bravo ratings in the cavosurface marginal discoloration scoring. No side effects were reported by the participants of the study. Conclusion: Restorations with both materials (Ceram•X mono and SDR) have provided almost identical results.

Download Full-text

Seven-Year Clinical Performance of Resin Composite Versus Resin-Modified Glass Ionomer Restorations in Noncarious Cervical Lesions

Operative Dentistry ◽

10.2341/13-054-c ◽

2014 ◽

Vol 39 (6) ◽

pp. 578-587 ◽

Cited By ~ 13

Author(s):

TC Fagundes ◽

TJE Barata ◽

E Bresciani ◽

SL Santiago ◽

EB Franco ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Clinical Performance ◽

Resin Composite ◽

Glass Ionomer ◽

Retention Performance ◽

Cervical Lesions ◽

Composite Restorations ◽

Marginal Integrity ◽

Etch And Rinse ◽

Significant Difference ◽

Resin Modified Glass Ionomer

SUMMARY Purpose The purpose of this study was to comparatively assess the seven-year clinical performance of a one-bottle etch-and-rinse adhesive with resin composite (RC) and resin-modified glass ionomer (RMGI) restorations in noncarious cervical lesions. Methods and Materials One operator placed 70 restorations (35 restorations in each group) in 30 patients under rubber dam isolation without mechanical preparation. The restorations were directly assessed by two independent examiners, using modified US Public Health Service criteria at baseline and 6, 12, 24, 60, and 84 months. The obtained data were tabulated and statistically analyzed using the Fisher and McNemar tests. A difference was significant if p<0.05. Results Twenty patients were available for recall after seven years (66.6%), and 25 RC and 26 RMGI restorations out of 70 restorations were evaluated. Excellent agreement was registered for all criteria between examiners (κ≥0.85). Alfa and bravo scores were classified as clinically acceptable. The McNemar test detected significant differences within RC restorations between baseline and seven-year evaluations for anatomic form, marginal integrity, and retention (p<0.05). For RMGI restorations, a significant difference was identified for marginal integrity (p<0.05). As to material comparison, the Fisher exact showed a better retention performance for RMGI restorations than for RC restorations (p<0.05). Twelve composite restorations were dislodged (52.0% retention) and three ionomer restorations were lost (88.5% retention). The cumulative success rate for RC and RMGI was 30% and 58.1%, respectively. Conclusions After seven years of service, the clinical performance of RMGI restorations was superior to that of the adhesive system/resin composite restorations in this study.

Download Full-text

Three-year Clinical Performance of Two Giomer Restorative Materials in Restorations

Operative Dentistry ◽

10.2341/17-353-c ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 46 (1) ◽

pp. E60-E67

Author(s):

F Ozer ◽

O Irmak ◽

O Yakymiv ◽

A Mohammed ◽

R Pande ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Clinical Performance ◽

Class I ◽

Restorative Material ◽

Secondary Caries ◽

Total N ◽

Marginal Integrity ◽

Significant Difference ◽

Restorative Materials ◽

Postoperative Sensitivity

Clinical Relevance The clinical performance of both conventional and flowable giomer restorative materials was particularly good in Class I restorations after three years of service. SUMMARY This study evaluated and compared the clinical performance of a flowable and a conventional giomer restorative material after three years. Forty-four pairs of restorations (total n=88) were placed in Class I cavities with either a flowable giomer (Beautifil Flow Plus F00; Shofu Inc, Kyoto, Japan) or a conventional giomer restorative material (Beautifil II; Shofu Inc) after the application of a dentin adhesive (FL-Bond II; Shofu Inc) and a flowable liner (Beautifil Flow Plus F03; Shofu Inc). After 3 years, 39 pairs of restorations were evaluated with the modified United States Public Health Service criteria, and digital color photographs of restorations were taken at each patient visit. The evaluation parameters were as follows: color match, marginal integrity, marginal discoloration, retention, secondary caries formation, anatomic form, surface texture, and postoperative sensitivity. Evaluations were recorded as a clinically ideal situation (Alpha), a clinically acceptable situation (Bravo), or a clinically unacceptable situation (Charlie). Data were analyzed with Fisher’s exact and McNemar tests (α=0.05). None of the restorations showed retention loss, postoperative sensitivity, secondary caries, or color change. The performance of Beautifil II in terms of marginal integrity, marginal discoloration, and surface anatomic form was significantly lower at the 36-month follow-up than at baseline (p=0.007). There were no significant differences between the baseline and 36-month follow-up scores for the other criteria for Beautifil II (p>0.05). No differences were found between the baseline and the 36-month follow-up scores for any of the criteria for Beautifil Flow Plus F00 (p>0.05). No statistically significant difference in overall clinical performance was found between the 2 materials after 36 months (p>0.05). The three-year clinical performance of both restorative materials (Beautifil Flow Plus F00 and Beautifil II) was very good and not significantly different for any of the parameters evaluated.

Download Full-text