Restoration of primary teeth: Clinical criteria for assessment of the literature

Department Paediatric Dentistry, Leeds Dental Institute, University of Leeds, Leeds, England.
European Archives of Paediatric Dentistry. Official Journal of the European Academy of Paediatric Dentistry. 07/2006; 7(2):48-52. DOI: 10.1007/BF03320814
Source: PubMed


This is was to establish a system of clinically based criteria for the assessment of papers published in peer reviewed journals concerning the use of restorative techniques in primary teeth.
Various publications that consider the approaches to be taken to setting up assessment criteria with the dental/medical literature were reviewed. These included the so called 'Cochrane criteria'. On the basis of this review a set of clinically based criteria were drawn up that were then used to produce a list of criteria to be used in a series of systematic reviews of the literature concerning the various restorative techniques, materials and medicaments for pulp therapy and the restoration of primary teeth.
There were 23 criteria that were felt to be appropriate. The list of 23 criteria were deemed to be appropriate for pulp therapy and 21 for restorative techniques and materials. Conclusion.A set of clinically based criteria is suggested for the systematic review of publications on restorative techniques for primary teeth.

7 Reads
  • Source
    • "However, appropriate moisture control is often difficult in severely decayed teeth [Kupietzky, 2002; Al-Eheideb and Herman, 2003]. Resin composites formed with strip crowns showed high success rates in anterior teeth, but staining, chipping, and loss were also reported [Kupietzky et al., 2003 and 2005; Curzon and Toumba, 2006; Ram and Fuks, 2006; Waggoner, 2006]. Retrospective studies report 50–100% retention rates for strip crowns and a minor portion of staining [O'Sullivan and Curzon, 1991; Eidelmann et al., 2000; Tate et al., 2002; Al-Eheideb and Herman, 2003; Mortada and King, 2004; Kupietzky et al., 2005; Ram and Fuks, 2006; Waggoner, 2006]. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To evaluate the effect of thermo-mechanical loading (TML) on marginal quality and wear of different crown types for primary molars. Eighty extracted human primary molars were used. After preparation, five groups received different crowns (n=16): preformed metal crowns (3M ESPE) and NuSmile crowns (Orthodontic Technologies Inc.) were inserted as preformed metal crowns; as semi-preformed crowns Protemp crowns (3M ESPE) were luted; and as individually manufactured resin composite crowns Filtek Z250 (3M ESPE) and Heliomolar (Ivoclar Vivadent) were used. Specimens were subjected to 2,500 thermal cycles between 5-55(o)C and chewing simulation for 100,000 cycles at 50N at a frequency of 0.5 Hz. Before and after thermo-mechanical loading, impressions of the teeth were taken and replicas were made. The replicas received marginal quality evaluation under a SEM at x200 magnification. Occlusal wear was measured as vertical height loss using a 3-D laser scanning microscope. After TML, all crowns were intact. The adhesively bonded crowns showed significantly better marginal quality to dentine/cementum compared with GIC luted crowns (p<0.05). Laboratory made crowns showed a good fit and nearly transition-free margins also after TML. Preformed metal crowns showed the significantly lowest wear rates compared to the resin composites (p<0.05). Among the resin composite groups, Protemp exhibited the most pronounced wear depths (p<0.05). The different crown types under investigation showed a good performance concerning the evaluated parameters marginal quality and wear.
    Full-text · Article · Aug 2012 · European Archives of Paediatric Dentistry. Official Journal of the European Academy of Paediatric Dentistry.
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To review the literature concerning the restoration of primary anterior teeth with pre-formed crowns or with the use of crown forms. A search of the dental literature was made electronically using key words: crowns, primary teeth, anterior teeth, strip crowns, stainless steel crowns, veneered crowns, (a)esthetic, restorative. All papers were reviewed and assessed for their relevance to paediatric dentistry and then graded according to a set or predetermined criteria. These criteria were used to identify those reports that met 100% of the criteria, graded A; 75% grade B1; more than 50% graded B2 and all others graded C. There were 90 papers in all using the key words. Of these none were rated grade A; B1 or B2 and all remaining valid papers (not single restoration case reports), 50 were graded C. Failure rates varied between 0% and 50% for strip crowns; 32-39% for veneered metal crowns. The review indicated there is some evidence as to the efficacy and value of using anterior primary teeth crowns because of the improved aesthetics that they achieve. There was an obvious lack of prospective well controlled studies and more studies are needed. No clinical studies concerning anterior crowns on primary teeth were identified that met all or even a majority of criteria, indicating that there was little, good scientific support for any of the techniques which clinicians have utilized for many years to restore primary anterior teeth. While a lack of strong clinical data does not preclude the use of these techniques it points out the strong need for well designed, prospective clinical studies to validate the use of these techniques.
    Full-text · Article · Jul 2006 · European Archives of Paediatric Dentistry. Official Journal of the European Academy of Paediatric Dentistry.
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To review the literature concerning the restoration of primary teeth with glass ionomer (GIC) or resin modified glass ionomer cement (RMGI) used in conventional class II cavities. A search of the literature identified through Medline between 1966 and 2006 using the key words: glass ionomer, resin modified, glass polyalkenoate, deciduous/primary teeth. Studies that used ART or tunnel preparations were excluded. Papers of relevant clinical studies (prospective and retrospective) were assessed and graded using predetermined criteria. Papers were graded according to the number of criteria met as (A >90%, B1 = 75%, B2 = 50%, C <50%). The search identified 411 papers, from which an application of the inclusion criteria yielded 20 studies. Of these, 2 were rated B1 and 18 B2. Failure rates varied from 6.6% to 60% for GIC, and from 2% to 24% for RMGI. GIC cannot be recommended for class II cavities in primary molars. There is evidence that RMGIC can perform successfully in small to moderate sized class II restorations.
    No preview · Article · Mar 2007 · European Archives of Paediatric Dentistry. Official Journal of the European Academy of Paediatric Dentistry.
Show more

Similar Publications