Restorative Approaches of Severely Damaged Primary Posterior Teeth

Year 2010, Volume: 4 Issue: 3, 647 - 656, 01.10.2010

Merve Akçay Şaziye Sarı

Abstract

The anatomy of the primary molar and flat interproximal contact areas makes them the most caries susceptible primary teeth. The importance of primary molars in mastication and as maintainers of space for the permanent teeth, coupled with the development of suitable economic restorative materials, has shaped of restoring and conserving primary molars. Restorative materials used in pediatric restorative dentistry are commonly the same as those used in restorative dentistry in general. Many materials are available, clinical considerations will dictate the choice of the appropriate material. It is apparent that the ideal restorative material for children’s teeth has not yet been developed. Nevertheless, today’s dentists have more options than even before when considering how to restore carious, malformed, or traumatically injures primary and permanent teeth. Consequently aesthetic, phonetic, and functional problems can be avoided with increasing treatment options

Keywords

Posterior Primary Teeth. Restorative Approaches . Severely Damaged

Aşırı Madde Kayıplı Posterior Süt Dişlerinde Restoratif Yaklaşımlar

Abstract

Süt molar dişlerini anatomisi ve düz interproksimal kontak alanları, onları çürükten en fazla etkilenecek dişler haline getirir. Çiğneme sırasındaki fonksiyonu ve arkadan sürecek olan dişlerin yerini koruma işlevlerinin önemi, uygun ekonomik restoratif materyallerin geliştirilmesi ile bağıntılı olarak olarak süt dişlerinin korunması ve restore edilmesinin esasını oluşturur. Çocuk diş hekimliğinde kullanılan restoratif materyaller genel restoratif diş hekimliğinde kullanılan materyallerle hemen hemen aynıdır ve bu amaca yönelik piyasada birçok materyal mevcuttur ancak en uygun seçim klinik duruma göre yapılmalıdır. Çocukların dişleri için ideal bir restoratif materyalin henüz geliştirilemediği görülmektedir. Bununla birlikte, günümüz diş hekimleri çürüklü, malforme ya da travmatik olarak yaralanmış süt ve daimi dişleri tedavi ederken geçmişe göre daha fazla seçeneğe sahiptirler. Böylece artan tedavi seçenekleri sayesinde; oluşabilecek estetik, fonetik ve fonksiyonel problemlerin önüne geçilebilecektir

Keywords

Süt arka grup dişler. Restoratif yaklaşım. Aşırı madde kaybı

References

• Waggoner FW. (Chapter 21 Restorative Dentis- try for the primary dentition) Pinkham JR., Casa- massimo PS., Fields HW., Nowak AJ., Mc Tigue D. J.Pediatric Dentistry: Infancy Through Adoles- cence. 4th Ed. 341-374, 2005.
• Bayırlı G., Şirin Ş. Restoratif tedavi. İstanbul Üni- versitesi Diş Hekimliği Fakültesi Yayınları. 127- 141, 1985.
• Osborne JW. Three-year clinical performance of eight amalgam alloys. Am J Dent. 3: 157-9, 1990.
• Einwag J., Dünninger P. Stainless steel crown versus multisurface amalgam restorations: An 8-year longitudinal clinical study. Quintessence Int. 27: 321-3, 1996.
• Marks LA, Weerheijm KL, Van Amerongen WE, Groen HJ, Martens LC. Dyract versus Tytin Class II restorations in primary molars: 36 months eva- luation. Caries Res. 33:387-92, 1999.
• Qvist V, Poulsen A, Teglers PT, Mjör IA. The lon- gevity of different restorations in primary teeth. Int J Paediatr Dent.20:1-7, 2010.
• Osborne JW., Summitt JB., Roberts HW. The use of dental amalgam in pediatric dentistry: review of the literature. Pediatr Dent. 24(5): 439-47, 2002. Review.
• Myers DR. Factors producing failure of class II silver amalgam restorations in primary molars. ASDC J Dent Child. 44(3):226-9, 1977.
• Fuks AB. The use of amalgam in pediatric dentis- try. Pediatr Dent. 24(5): 448-55, 2002. Review.
• Going RE., Moffa JP., Nostrant GW., Johnson BE. The strength of dental amalgam as influen- ced by pins. J Am Dent Assoc. 77(6):1331-4
• Cecconi BT., Asgar K. Pins in amalgam: a study in reinforcement. J. Prothet. Dent. 26: 159-169, 1971.
• Cooley RL., Lubow RM., Wayman BE. Treatment of pin perforations.Gen Dent. 30(2):148-53, 1982.
• Aktören O. İleri derecede madde kaybı bulunan süt azılarında çeşitli amalgam tutuculuk yöntem- lerinin araştırılması. İ.Ü. Diş Hek Fak Derg 28: 201-10, 1994.
• Shavell HM. The amalgapin technique for comp- lex amalgam restorations. J Calif Dent Assoc. 8(4):48-55, 1980.
• Leach CD., Martinoff JT., Lee CY. A second look at the Amalgapin technique. CDA J. 11(4):43-9, 1983.
• Outhwaite WC., Garman TA., Pashley DH. Pin vs. slot retention in extensive amalgam restorati- ons. J Prosthet Dent. 41(4):396-400, 1979.
• Outhwaite WC., Twiggs SW., Fairhurst CW., King GE. Slots vs pins: A comparison of retenti- on under simulated chewing stresses. J Dent Res. 61(2):400-2, 1982.
• Alaçam T., Nalbant L., Alaçam A. İleri Restoras- yon Teknikleri. Polat Yayınları. 364-389, 1998.
• Cooley RL., Mccoyrt JW., Train TE. Bond strength of resin to amalgam as affected by surface finish. Quintessence Int. 20(4): 237-9, 1989.
• Silva AF., Piva E., Demarco FF., Correro Sobrin- ho L., Osinga PW. Microleakage in conventio- nal and bonded amalgam restorations: influen- ce of cavity volume. Oper Dent.31(3):377-83, 2006.
• Dawson LR., Simon JF. , Taylor PP. Use of amal- gam and stainless steel restorations for primary molars. ASDC J Dent Child. 48(6): 420-2, 1981.
• Messer, LB., Levering NJ. The durability of pri- mary molar restorations: II. Observations and predictions of success of stainless steel crowns. Pediatr Dent. 10(2):81-5, 1988.
• Randall, RC. Preformed metal crowns for primary and permanent molar teeth: review of the litera- ture. Pediatr Dent. 24(5): 489-500, 2002. Revi- ew.
• Seale, NS. The use of stainless steel crowns. Pe- diatr Dent. 24(5):501-5, 2002. Review.
• Levering NJ., Messer LB. The durability of pri- mary molar restorations: III. Costs associated with placement and replacement. Pediatr Dent. 10(2):86-93, 1988.
• Roberts JF., Attari N., Sheriff M. The survival of resin modified glass ionomer and stainless steel crown restorations in primary molars, placed in a specialist paediatric dental practice. Br Dent J. 9;198(7): 427-31, 2005.
• Atieh M. Stainless steel crown versus modified open-sandwich restorations for primary molars: A 2-year randomized clinical trial. Int J Paediatr Dent. 18(5):325-32, 2008.
• Adair SM., Byrd RL. Evaluation of practitioner- developed criteria for assessing the quality of stainless steel crown restorations. J Pedod. 7(4): 291-9, 1983.
• Spedding RH .Two principles for improving the adaptation of stainless steel crowns to primary molars. Dent Clin North Am. 28(1): 157-75, 1984.
• Croll TP., Epstein DW., Castaldi CR. Marginal adaptation of stainless steel crowns. Pediatr Dent. 25(3): 249-52., 2003.
• Cho E., Kopel H., White SN. Moisture suscep- libility of resinmodified glass-ionomer materials. Quint Int. 26: 351-358, 1995.
• Mclean JW. Glass-ionomer cements. Br Dent J.164: 293-300, 1998.
• Bala O. Poliaasit-modifiye kompozit rezinler, (kompomerler) literatür taraması. Cumhuriyet Diş Hek Fak Derg. 1(2): 113-118, 1998.
• Welbury RR., Shaw AJ, Murray JJ, Gordon PH., Mccabe JF. Clinical evaluation of paired compo- mer and glass ionomer restorations in primary molars: Final results after 42 months. Br Dent J. 22;189(2): 93-7, 2000.
• Toh SL., Messer LB. Evidence-based assessment of tooth-colored restorations in proximal lesions of primary molars. Pediatr Dent. 29(1):8-15, 2007.
• Smith DC. Composition and characterisitics of glass-ionomer cements. JADA 120: 20-22
• 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. Eur J Oral Sci. 112(2):188-96, 2004.
• Rabelo RT., Caldo-Teixeira AS., Puppirontani RM. An alternative aesthetic restoration for ex- tensive coronal destruction in primary molars: İn- direct restorative technique with composite resin. J Clin Pediatr Dent. 29(4): 277-81, 2005.
• Jackson RD., Morgan M. The New Posterior Resins and a Simplified Placement technique. JADA, 131: 375-383, 2000.
• Altun C. Kompozit dolgu materyallerinde son gelişmeler. Gülhane Tıp Dergisi 47 (1) : 77 – 82, 2005.
• 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. 14(3):148- 52, 2001.
• Hse KM, Wei SHJ. Clinical evaluation of com- pomer in primary teeth: 1-year results. Am Dent Assoc. 128(8):1088-96, 1997.
• Bayne SC., Thompson Y J., Swift E J. A Chare- acterization Composites. JADA,129: 567-577, 1998.
• Ram D., Peretz B. Composite crown-form crowns for severely decayed primary molars: A tech- nique for restoring function and esthetics. J Clin Pediatr Dent. Summer;24(4): 257-60, 2000.
• Tyas MJ. Clinical evalution of a polyacid-modifi- ed resin composite (compomer) Oper Dent. 23: 77-80, 1998.
• Glayds S., Van Meerbeek B., Braem M., Lamb- rechts P., Vanherle G. Comparative Physico-me- chanical characterization of hybrid restorative materials with conventional glass-ionomer and resin composite restorative materials. J Dent Res. 76: 883-894, 1997.
• 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 55: 255–260, 1997.
• Wendt LK, Koch G, Birkhed D. Replacements of restorations in the primary and young permanent dentition. Swed Dent J 22: 149–155, 1998.
• Cameron A., Widmer R .Handbook of Pediatric Dentstry. Second Edition. Part 3: Dental Cari- es and Restorative Padiatric Dentistry, 44-70, 2003.
• Fuks AB., Ram D., Eidelman E. Clinical perfor- mance of esthetic posterior crowns in primary molars: a pilot study. Pediatr Dent. 21(7): 445-8, 1999.
• Ram D., Fuks AB., Eidelman E. Long-term cli- nical performance of esthetic primary molar crowns. Pediatr Dent. 25(6): 582-4, 2003.
• Innes NP. , Evans DJP. , Stirrups DR. A rando- mized controlled clinical trial of a novel method of managing carious primary molars in general dental practice; acceptability of the technique and outcomes at 23 months. BMC Oral Health 7:18.1-21, 2007.
• Innes NP., Stirrups DR., Evans DJ., Hall N., Leg- gate M. A novel technique using preformed me- tal crowns for managing carious primary molars in general practice - a retrospective analysis. Br Dent J. 22;200(8):451-4,2006.
• Oliveira LB., Tamay TK., Oliveira MD., Rodrigu- es CM, Wanderley MT. Human enamel veneer restoration: An alternative technique to resto- re anterior primary teeth. J Clin Pediatr Dent. 30(4): 277-9, 2006.
• Sanches K., Carvalho FK., Nelson-Filho P., As- sed S., Silva FW., Quiroz AM. Biological Res- torations as a Treatment Option for Primary Mo- lars with Extensive Coronal Destruction - Report of Two Cases. Braz Dent J. 18(3): 248-252, 2007.
• Barcelos R., Nevess AA., Primo L., De Souza IP. Biological restorations as an alternative tre- atment for primary posterior teeth. J Clin ediatr Dent. 27(4):305-10, 2003.
• Strub JR., Rekow ED., Witkowski S. Computer- aided design and fabrication of dental resto- rations: Current systems and future possibilities. JADA. 137:1289-1296, 2006.
• Stines SM. Pediatric CAD/CAM applications for the general practitioner Part 1. Dent Today. 27:130-133, 2008.