29Aug 2017

COMPOSITE RESIN OR COMPOMER FOR THE RESTORATION OF PRIMARY MOLARS: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW.

  • Ass. Lecturer, Department of Pediatric Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, Fayoum University.
  • Ass. Professor, Department of Pediatric Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, Cairo University.
  • Professor, Department of Pediatric Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, Cairo University.
Crossref Cited-by Linking logo

  • Abstract
  • Keywords
  • References
  • Cite This Article as
  • Corresponding Author

The present systematic review was performed to evaluate the clinical performance of composite resin and compomer; when used in restoration of primary molars.Search in literature was performed inPubMed, Cochrane Library, Scopus, and Embase databases,up to the 30th of November 2016 to identify relevant studies. Randomized control trials evaluating both restorative materials; were exclusively included. In vitro studies, animal studies, case series, case reports, and cohort studies were excluded. From the 190different screened articles; 4 experiments were included in the review. The current reviewconcluded that the clinical performance of both composite resin and compomer restorations;is acceptable, indicating no superiority of either restorations. Although. further studies are required to develop stronger evidence.

  1. United State Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service. Dental amalgam. A scientific review and recommended Public Health Service strategy for research, education, and regulation: final report of Subcommittee on Risk Management. Washington, D.C.: Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service; January 1993.
  2. FDI World Dental Federation and World Health Organization. Consensus statement on dental amalgam. FDI World 1995;4(4):9-10.
  3. Widstrom E, Birn H, Haugejorden 0and Sundberg H. Fear of amalgam: dentists\' experiences in the Nordic countries. Int Dent J 1992; 42:65-70.
  4. FDI World Dental Federation. The amalgam story continues. FDI World 1994;3(4):13-6.
  5. Soncini J, Maserejian N, Trachtenberg F, Tavares M and 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(6):763-72.
  6. Duggal M, ToumbaJ and Sharma N. 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.
  7. Toh S and Messer L. Evidence-based assessment of tooth-colored restorations in proximal lesions of primary molars. Ped Dent. 2007; 29(1): 8?15.
  8. Daou M, Tavernier B and Meyer J. Clinical evaluation of four different dental restorative materials: one-year results. Schweiz MonatsschrZahnmed. 2008; 118(4): 290?5.
  9. Mjor I. Controlled clinical trials and practice-based research in dentistry. J of Dent Res. 2008;87:800.
  10. Higgins J, Green S: Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. Available at: http://cochrane-handbook.org/, Version 5. The Cochrane Collaboration; 2011.
  11. Higgins J, Altman D, G?tzsche P, J?ni P, Moher D, Oxman A, et al. The Cochrane Collaboration?s tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ 2011; 343: d5928.
  12. Hse KM and Wei SH. Clinical Evaluation of Compomer in Primary Teeth: 1-Year Results. J Am Dent Assoc. 1997; 128(8): 1088?96.
  13. Attin, T., Opatowski, A., Meyer, C., Zingg-Meyer, B., and Hellwig E. Clinical evaluation of a hybrid composite and a polyacid-modified composite resin in Class-II restorations in deciduous molars. Clinic Oral Invest. 1998; 2(3): 115?9.
  14. Attin T, Opatowski A., Meyer C, Zingg-Meyer B, and M?nting J. Class II restorations with a polyacid-modified composite resin in primary molars placed in a dental practice: results of a two-year clinical evaluation. Oper Dent. 2000; 25(4): 259?64.
  15. Attin T, Opatowski A, Meyer C, Zingg-Meyer B, Buchalla W, and M?nting, J. Three-year follow up assessment of Class II restorations in primary molars with a polyacid-modified composite resin and a hybrid composite. Am J of Dent. 2001; 14(3): 148?52.
  16. Pascon F, Kantovitz K, Caldo-Teixeira A, Borges A, Silva T, Puppin-Rontani R, and Garcia-Godoy F. Clinical evaluation of composite and compomer restorations in primary teeth: 24-month results. J Dent. 2006; 34(6): 381?8.
  17. Dos Santos M, Passos M, Luiz R, and Maia L. A randomized trial of resin-based restorations in class I and class II beveled preparations in primary molars: 24-month results. J Am Dent Assoc. 2009; 140(2): 156-66.
  18. Dos Santos M, Luiz R, and Maia L. Randomised trial of resin-based restorations in Class I and Class II beveled preparations in primary molars: 48-Month results. J of Dent. 2010; 38(6): 451?9.
  19. Sengul F and Gurbuz T. Clinical Evaluation of Restorative Materials in Primary Teeth Class II Lesions. J ClinPediatr Dent. 2015; 39(4): 315?21.
  20. BektasDonmez S, Uysal S, Dolgun A, and Turgut M. Clinical performance of aesthetic restorative materials in primary teeth according to the FDI criteria. Eur J Ped Dent. 2016; 17(3): 202?12.
  21. Garcia-Godoy F. Resin-based composites and compomers in primary molars. Dent Clin North Am. 2000; 44:541?70.
  22. Hickel R, Kaaden C, Paschos E, Buerkle V, Garcia-Godoy F and Manhart J. Longevity of occlusally-stressed restorations in posterior primary teeth. Am J Dent 2005;18(3):198-211.
  23. Goldberg J, Tanzer J, Munster E, Amara J, Thal F and Birkhed D. Cross-sectional clinical evaluation of recurrent enamel caries, restoration of marginal integrity, and oral hygiene status. J Am Dent Assoc 1981;102(5): 635-41.

[Maha Moussa Azab, Dalia Mohamed Moheb, Osama Ibrahim El Shahawy and MervatRashed. (2017); COMPOSITE RESIN OR COMPOMER FOR THE RESTORATION OF PRIMARY MOLARS: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW. Int. J. of Adv. Res. 5 (Aug). 1906-1912] (ISSN 2320-5407). www.journalijar.com

Maha Moussa Azab
Ass. Lecturer, Department of Pediatric Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, Fayoum University

DOI:

Article DOI: 10.21474/IJAR01/5256      
DOI URL: https://dx.doi.org/10.21474/IJAR01/5256

Download Full Paper

Download PDF No. of Downloads: 155 | No. of Views: 342