CLINICAL AND RADIOLOGICAL EVALUATION OF A PREFORMED COMPOSITE CROWN IN SEVERELY DECAYED PRIMARY MOLARS

Öz

The aim of this study was to evaluate the clinical and radiographic success and parental acceptance of a preformed composite crown (PTC) for primary molars and compare with that of conventional stainless steel crowns (SSC). A total of 38 children (Girls:12, Boys:26) in five-nine age range, selected from among patients attending the pediatric dentistry clinic. Seventy-sixth crowns were applied in a split-mouth design with a random allocation for mandibular primary 1st and 2nd molars. Assessment of the clinical and radiographic performance of the restorations was performed by two calibrated examiners during 12-month follow-up period and parental satisfaction was determined for both crowns.Total clinical success rates were 100% and 63% for SSCs and PTCs, respectively, at the end of 12-month follow-up, and the difference was statistically significant (p<0.05). Despite the high rates of cementation and endodontic failures, parents were much more satisfied with PTCs (p<0.05). It has been determined that SSCs is more successful than PTCs, but PTCs were preferred by parents due to their aesthetic features.Despite the high rate of aesthetic satisfaction in the PTC group, studies are needed to evaluate the coronal leakage factor in terms of its potential to cause the problems of "falling out of crowns" and "endodontic problems", observed as clinical failure.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Composite resins
• primary tooth
• stainless steel
• tooth crown

AŞIRI MADDE KAYIPLI SÜT AZI DİŞLERİNDE BİR PREFABRİK KOMPOZİT KRONUN BAŞARISININ KLİNİK VE RADYOLOJİK DEĞERLENDİRİLMESİ

Öz

Bu araştırmada aşırı madde kaybı olan süt azı dişlerinin tedavisinde prefabrik kompozit kuronlar (PK) ile paslanmaz çelik kuronların (PÇK) başarısının klinik ve radyografik olarak karşılaştırılması ve ebeveynlerin memnuniyetinin ölçülmesi amaçlanmıştır. Çalışma Pedodonti Anabilim Dalı’na başvuran, yaşları beş-dokuz arasında değişen 38 çocuk (12 kız, 26 erkek) hasta üzerinde ürütülmüştür. Kuronlar, aşırı madde kayıplı birinci ve ikinci alt süt azı (n=76) dişine split-mouth tekniği ile uygulanmıştır. 12 aylık takip süresi sonunda iki adet kalibre olmuş değerlendirici tarafından klinik ve radyolojik başarı değerlendirilmiş ve ebeveyn memnuniyeti ölçümü yapılmıştır. Genel klinik başarı oranları 12 aylık takip süresi sonunda PÇK grubu için %100 iken PK grubu için %63 olarak tespit edilmiştir ve aradaki farkın istatistiksel olarak anlamlı olduğu belirlenmiştir. PK kuronlarda “Endodontik sorunlar” ve “kuronların düşmesi” gibi başarısızlıklara rağmen ebeveynlerin memnuniyet derecesinin PÇK’lara kıyasla daha yüksek olduğu bulunmuştur (p<0.05). Tüm klinik ve radyografik değerlendirme kriterlerinde PÇK’nın PK’ya oranla daha başarılı olduğu ancak estetik özellikleri nedeniyle PK’ların daha çok tercih edildiği saptanmıştır. PK grubunda estetik açıdan memnuniyet oranının yüksek olmasına karşılık klinik başarısızlık olarak gözlenen “kuronların düşmesi” ve “endodontik sorunlar” problemlerine neden olma potansiyeli açısından etken olabilecek faktörlerin değerlendirileceği çalışmalara ihtiyaç olduğu düşünülmektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Dental taç
• kompozitrezin
• paslanmaz çelik
• süt dişi

Kaynakça

1. American Academy of Pediatric Dentistry Clinical Affairs Committee-Restorative Dentistry Subcommittee. Guideline on pediatric restorative dentistry. Pediatr Dent 2012; 34:173-180.
2. Innes NP, Ricketts D, Chong LY et al. Preformed crowns for decayed primary molar teeth. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2015; 31:CD005512.
3. Alyahya A, Khanum A, Qudeimat M. Clinical assessment of class II resin-based composites versus preformed metal crowns performed on primary molars in patients at high risk of caries. Eur Arch Paediatr Dent 2018; 19:39-45.
4. Fuks AB, Ram D, Eidelman E. Clinical performance of esthetic posterior crowns in primary molars: a pilot study. Pediatr Dent 1999; 21:445-448.
5. Ram D, Fuks AB, Eidelman E. Long-term clinical performance of esthetic primary molar crowns. Pediatr Dent 2003; 25:582-584.
6. Kratunova E, O'Connell AC. A randomized clinical trial investigating the performance of two commercially available posterior pediatric preveneered stainless steel crowns: A continuation study. Pediatr Dent 2014; 36:494-498.
7. Aiem E, Smaïl-Faugeron V, Muller-Bolla M. Aesthetic preformed paediatric crowns: Systematic review. Int J Paediatr Dent. 2017; 27:273-282.
8. Mittal HC, Goyal A, Gauba K, Kapur A. Clinical performance of indirect composite onlays as esthetic alternative to stainless steel crowns for rehabilitation of a large carious primary molar. J Clin Pediatr Dent 2016; 40:345-352.

9. Tartuk BK, Ayna E, Göncü Başaran E. Evaluation of the internal accuracy of molar crowns fabricated using digital and conventional impression techniques. Meandros Med Dent J 2018; 19:240-246.
10. Dursun E, Monnier-Da Costa A, Moussally C. Chairside CAD/CAM composite onlays for the restoration of primary molars. J Clin Pediatr Dent 2018; 42:349-354.
11. Townsend JA, Knoell P, Yu Q et al. In vitro fracture resistance of three commercially available zirconia crowns for primary molars. Pediatr Dent 2014; 36:125-129.
12. Walia T, Salami AA, Bashiri R, Hamoodi OM, Rashid F. A randomized controlled trial of three aesthetic full-coronal restorations in primary maxillary teeth. Eur J Paediatr Dent 2014; 15:113-118.
13. Wada K, Miyashin M. New techniques for producing aesthetic, direct full-crown composite resin restorations for primary molars: A 24-month follow-up study of eight cases. Eur J Paediatr Dent 2015; 16:205-209.
14. Yılmaz Y, Koçoğulları ME. Clinical evaluation of two different methods of stainless steel esthetic crowns. J Dent Child (Chic) 2004; 71:212-214.
15. Krämer N, Rudolph H, Garcia-Godoy F, Frankenberger R. Effect of thermo-mechanical loading on marginal quality and wear of primary molar crowns. Eur Arch Paediatr Dent 2012; 13:185-190.
16. Balkenhol M, Ferger P, Mautner MC, Wöstmann B. Provisional crown and fixed partial denture materials: mechanical properties and degree of conversion. Dent Mater 2007; 23:1574-1583.
17. Rosentritt M, Behr M, Lang R, Handel G. Flexural properties of prosthetic provisional polymers. Eur J Prosthodont Restor Dent 2004; 12:75-79.
18. Burke FJT, Sands P. Use of a novel resin composite crown as a long-term provisional. Dent Update 2009; 36:481-487.
19. American Academy on Pediatric Dentistry Clinical Affairs Committee Pulp Therapy Subcommıttee Pulp Therapy for Primary and Immature Permanent Teeth. The Reference Manual of Pediatric Dentistry 2019-2020/P. 353-361 Latest Revision 2014.
20. Sharaf AA, Farsi NM. Clinical and radiographic evaluation of stainless steel crowns for primary molars. J Dent 2004; 32:27-33.
21. Kupietzky A, Waggoner WE, Galea J. Long-term photographic and radiographic assessment of bonded resin composite strip crowns for primary incisors: Results after 3 years. Pediatr Dent 2005; 27:221-225.
22. Roberts C, Lee JY, Wright JT. Clinical evaluation of and parental satisfaction with resin-faced stainless steel crowns. Pediatr Dent 2001; 23:28-31.
23. Roberts JF, Sheriff M. The fate and survival of amalgams and preformed crown molar restorations placed in specialist paediatric dental practice. Br Dent J 1990; 169:237-244.
24. Kilpatrick NM. Durability of restorations in primary molars. J Dent Apr 1993; 21:67-73.
25. Einwag J, Dünninger P. Stainless steel crown versus multisurface amalgam restorations: An 8-year longitudinal clinical study. Quintessence Int 1996; 27:321-323.
26. Randall RC, Vrijhoef MMA, Wilson NHF. Efficacy of preformed metal crowns vs. amalgam restorations: in primary molars: A systematic review. J Am Dent Assoc 2000; 131:337-343.
27. Seale NS. The use of stainless steel crowns. Pediatr Dent 2002; 24:501-505.
28. Zimmerman JA, Feigal RJ, Till MJ, Hodges JS. Parental attitudes on restorative materials as factors influencing current use in pediatric dentistry. Pediatr Dent 2009; 31:63-70.
29. Ramires-Romito AC, Wanderley MT, Olivera MD, Imparato JC, Correa MS. Biologic restoration of primary anterior teeth. Quintessence Int 2000; 31:405-411.
30. Barcelos R, Nevess AA, Primo L, De Souza IP. Biological restorations as an alternative treatment for primary posterior teeth. J Clin Pediatr Dent 2003; 27:305-310.
31. Peretz B, Ram D. Restorative material for children's teeth: preferences of parents and children. ASDC J Dent Child 2002; 69:243-248.
32. 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.
33. Ram D, Fuks AB. Clinical performance of resin-bonded composite strip crowns in primary incisors: a retrospective study. Int J Paediatr Dent 2006; 16:49-54.
34. Leith R, O'Connell AC. A clinical study evaluating success of 2 commercially available preveneered primary molar stainless steel crowns. Pediatr Dent 2011; 33:300-306.
35. Ram D, Peretz B. Composite crown-form crowns for severely decayed primary molars: A technique for restoring function and esthetics. J Clin Pediatr Dent. 2000; 24:257-260.
36. Atieh M. Stainless steel crown versus modified open-sandwich restorations for primary molars: a 2-year randomized clinical trial. Int J Paediatr Dent 2008; 18:325-332.
37. Sönmez D, Durutürk L. Success rate of calcium hydroxide pulpotomy in primary molars restored with amalgam and stainless steel crowns. Br Dent J 2010; 208:E18-E18.
38. Papathanasiou AG, Curzon MEJ, Fairpo CG. The influence of restorative material on the survival rate of restorations in primary molars. Pediatr Dent 1994;16: 282-288.
39. Eyüboğlu D, Beldüz D, Koçoğulları D. Shear bond strength of preveneered posterior stainless steel crowns. Ata Diş Hek Fak Derg 2006; 1:25-29.
40. Al Jabbari YS, Al Taweel SM, Al Rifaiy, et al. Effects of surface treatment and artificial aging on the shear bond strength of orthodontic brackets bonded to four different provisional restorations. Angle Orthod 2014; 84:649-655.
41. Patil SS, Kontham UR, Kamath A, Kontham R. Shear bond strength of composite resin bonded to preformed metal crowns for primary molars using a universal adhesive and two different surface treatments: An in vitro study. Eur Arch Paediatr Dent 2016; 17:377-380.
42. Arora SJ, Arora A, Upadhyaya V, Jain S. Comparative evaluation of marginal leakage of provisional crowns cemented with different temporary luting cements: In vitro study. J Indian Prosthodont Soc 2016; 6:42-48.
43. Yılmaz Y, Dalmıs A, Gürbüz T, Şimşek S. Retentive force and microleakage of stainless steel crowns cemented with three different luting agents. Dent Mater J 2004; 23:577-584.
44. Karatoprak O, Kırzıoğlu Z. Paslanmaz çelik kuronların yapıştırılmasında kullanilan üç farklı simanın sızıntı ve tutuculuk özelliklerinin karşılaştırılması. Ata Diş Hek Fak Derg. 1997; 7:21-27.
45. Sarı ME, Özmen B. Çocuk diş hekimliğinde kullanılan farklı rezin modifiye cam iyonomer simanların su emilimi ve mikrosızıntı değerlerinin karşılaştırılması. Ata Diş Hek Fak Derg. 2013; 23:43-49.
46. Threlfall AG, Pilkington L, Milsom KM, Blinkhorn AS, Tickle M. General dental practitioners' views on the use of stainless steel crowns to restore primary molars. Br Dent J 2005; 199:453-455.
47. Bell SJ, Morgan AG, Marshman Z, Rodd HD. Child and parental acceptance of preformed metal crowns. Eur Arch Paediatr Dent 2010; 11: 218-224.