Download PDF
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · Eur J Dent 2017; 11(01): 048-052
DOI: 10.4103/1305-7456.202616
Original Article
Dental Investigation Society

Can onlay's be an alternative restoration for severely damaged primary teeth

Begum Gok Coban
1   Department of Pedodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Süleyman Demirel University, Isparta, Turkiye
,
Zuhal Kirzioglu
1   Department of Pedodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Süleyman Demirel University, Isparta, Turkiye
,
Ayse Ceren Altun
2   Department of Oral and Dental Health/Dentistry, Medical Park Hospital, Antalya, Turkiye
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
25 September 2019 (online)

   Permissions and Reprints

ABSTRACT

Objective: The aim of this study was to evaluate indirect compomer and composite resin onlay restorations of severely damaged primary molars in vivo. Materials and Methods: At the study, 48 restorations, in seven girls and ten boys totally 17 patients aged 4–8, was evaluated clinically with using USPHS criteria for 15 months. Results: The study results revealed that the clinical success rate of compomer and composite onlay restorations was 79% and 96%, respectively. No significant differences were found statistically between the materials. Conclusions: In the children severely damaged primary molars, onlays are usually worked with an indirect technique in clinics. One of the advantages of indirect technique is being most similar to its original form morphologically.

Key words:

Compomer resins - composite resin - dental material - dental restoration - primary teeth
 

  • REFERENCES

  • 1 El-Mowafy O. Management of extensive carious lesions in permanent molars of a child with nonmetallic bonded restorations – A case report. J Can Dent Assoc 2000; 66: 302-7
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Hornbrook DS, Crispin BJ. Indirect and direct composite restorations. In: Crispin BJ, editor. Contemporary Esthetic Dentistry: Practice Fundamentals. Tokyo: Quintessence Publishing Company; 1994: 137-54
    Google Scholar
  • 3 Özgünaltay G, Görücü J, Tiritoğlu M. Glass ionomer cement fillings in the vicinity of the study of the decays generated by the in vitro method. Dental Journal of Dicle 1995; 6: 103-7
    Google Scholar
  • 4 Hickel R, Dasch W, Janda R, Tyas M, Anusavice K. New direct restorative materials. FDI commission project. Int Dent J 1998; 48: 3-16
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Shinkai K, Suzuki S, Leinfelder KF, Katoh Y. How heat treatment and thermal cycling affect wear of composite resin inlays. J Am Dent Assoc 1994; 125: 1467-72
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Frankl SN, Shiere FR, Fogels HR. Should the parent remain with the child in the dental operatory?. J Dent Child 1962; 29: 150-63
    Google Scholar
  • 7 Özyöney G. Clinical andin vitro evaluation of ips empress ii onlay restorations on extensively damaged teeth. Istanbul: Marmara University Health Sciences institude; PhD thesis 1962
    Google Scholar
  • 8 Fishman R, Guelmann M, Bimstein E. Children's selection of posterior restorative materials. J Clin Pediatr Dent 2006; 31: 1-4
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 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
  • 10 Bell SJ, Morgan AG, Marshman Z, Rodd HD. Child and parental acceptance of preformed metal crowns. Eur Arch Paediatr Dent 2010; 11: 218-24
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Hume WR, Gerzina TM. Bioavailability of components of resin-based materials which are applied to teeth. Crit Rev Oral Biol Med 1996; 7: 172-9
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Geurtsen W, Lehmann F, Spahl W, Leyhausen G. Cytotoxicity of 35 dental resin composite monomers/additives in permanent 3T3 and three human primary fibroblast cultures. J Biomed Mater Res 1998; 41: 474-80
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Kırzıoğlu Z, Yılmaz Y, Bayındır Y. The evaluation of microleakage on beta-quartz inserts, prepolymerized resin composite balls, incremental and bulk insertion methods. The Journal of Dental Faculty of Ataturk University 1998; 8: 11-6
    Google Scholar
  • 14 Davidson CL, de Gee AJ. Light-curing units, polymerization, and clinical implications. J Adhes Dent 2000; 2: 167-73
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Guiraldo RD, Consani S, Lympius T, Schneider LF, Sinhoreti MA, Correr-Sobrinho L. Influence of the light curing unit and thickness of residual dentin on generation of heat during composite photoactivation. J Oral Sci 2008; 50: 137-42
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Wendt Jr SL. The effect of heat used as a secondary cure upon the physical properties of three composite resins. I. Diametral tensile strength, compressive strength, and marginal dimensional stability. Quintessence Int 1987; 18: 265-71
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Wendt Jr SL. The effect of heat used as secondary cure upon the physical properties of three composite resins. II. Wear, hardness, and color stability. Quintessence Int 1987; 18: 351-6
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Peutzfeldt A, Asmussen E. The effect of postcuring on quantity of remaining double bonds, mechanical properties, and in vitro wear of two resin composites. J Dent 2000; 28: 447-52
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Casselli DS, Worschech CC, Paulillo LA, Dias CT. Diametral tensile strength of composite resins submitted to different activation techniques. Braz Oral Res 2006; 20: 214-8
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Bertassoni LE, Marshall GW, de Souza EM, Rached RN. Effect of pre-and postpolymerization on flexural strength and elastic modulus of impregnated, fiber-reinforced denture base acrylic resins. J Prosthet Dent 2008; 100: 449-57
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Miyazaki CL, Medeiros IS, Santana IL, Matos Jdo R, Rodrigues Filho LE. Heat treatment of a direct composite resin: Influence on flexural strength. Braz Oral Res 2009; 23: 241-7
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Romieu O, Levallois B, Gal JY. Comparative study of flouride relase by two compomers with or without post-polymerization, in water and in artificial saliva (SAGF medium). Eur Cells Mater 2005; 9: 68-70
    Google Scholar
  • 23 Wada K, Miyashin M, Nango N, Takagi Y. Wear of resin composites and primary enamel and their applicability to full crown restoration of primary molars. Am J Dent 2011; 24: 67-73
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Papagiannoulis L, Kakaboura A, Pantaleon F, Kavvadia 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: 231-4
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 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. Br Dent J 2000; 189: 93-7
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Pascon FM, Kantovitz KR, Caldo-Teixeira AS, Borges AF, Silva TN, Puppin-Rontani RM. et al. Clinical evaluation of composite and compomer restorations in primary teeth: 24-month results. J Dent 2006; 34: 381-8
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Memarpour M, Mesbahi M, Shafiei F. Three-and-a-half-year clinical evaluation of posterior composite resin in children. J Dent Child (Chic) 2010; 77: 92-8
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Villalta P, Oliveira LB, Imparato JC, Rodrigues CR. Indirect composite onlay restorations in primary molars: A clinical report. J Clin Pediatr Dent 2006; 31: 17-20
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Cehreli ZC, Cetinguc A, Cengiz SB, Altay AN. Clinical performance of pulpotomized primary molars restored with resin-based materials 24-month results. Am J Dent 2006; 19: 262-6
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Andersson-Wenckert IE, Folkesson UH, van Dijken JW. Durability of a polyacid-modified composite resin (compomer) in primary molars. A multicenter study. Acta Odontol Scand 1997; 55: 255-60
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Gündoğdu N. Clinical success of restorations apllied with defferent techniques to the deciduous teeth and the in vivo study on microleakages. Erzurum, Turkey: Ataturk University, Institute of Medical Sciences, PhD thesis; 1998
    Google Scholar
  • 32 Mjör IA, Dahl JE, Moorhead JE. Placement and replacement of restorations in primary teeth. Acta Odontol Scand 2002; 60: 25-8
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Soncini JA, Maserejian NN, Trachtenberg F, Tavares M, Hayes C. The longevity of amalgam versus compomer/composite restorations in posterior primary and permanent teeth: Findings from the New England children's amalgam trial. J Am Dent Assoc 2007; 138: 763-72
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Motokawa W, Braham RL, Teshima B. Clinical evaluation of light-cured composite resin inlays in primary molars. Am J Dent 1990; 3: 115-8
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Kilpatrick NM. Durability of restorations in primary molars. J Dent 1993; 21: 67-73
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 Olmez A, Cula S, Ulusu T. Clinical evaluation and marginal leakage of Amalgambond Plus: Three-year results. Quintessence Int 1997; 28: 651-6
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 37 Hse KM, Wei SH. Clinical evaluation of compomer in primary teeth: 1-year results. J Am Dent Assoc 1997; 128: 1088-96
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 38 Attin T, Opatowski A, Meyer C, Zingg-Meyer B, Buchalla W, Mönting 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
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 39 Gross LC, Griffen AL, Casamassimo PS. Compomers as class II restorations in primary molars. Pediatr Dent 2001; 23: 24-7
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 40 Qvist V, Poulsen A, Teglers PT, Mjör IA. The longevity of different restorations in primary teeth. Int J Paediatr Dent 2010; 20: 1-7
    Google Scholar
  • 41 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar