Placement and replacement of restorations in primary teeth

Authors

  • Ivar A. Mjör Department of Operative Dentistry and Division of Biostatistics, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, USA, and NIOM, Scandinavian Institute of Dental Materials, Haslum, Norway
  • Jon E. Dahl Department of Operative Dentistry and Division of Biostatistics, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, USA, and NIOM, Scandinavian Institute of Dental Materials, Haslum, Norway
  • Jacquelyn E. Moorhead Department of Operative Dentistry and Division of Biostatistics, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, USA, and NIOM, Scandinavian Institute of Dental Materials, Haslum, Norway

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.1080/000163502753471961

Keywords:

Amalgam, Compomers, Glass Ionomer, Longevity, Selection Of Materials

Abstract

This practice-based study aimed to record the use of restorative materials, the type of restoration by class, and the reason for and the age of failed restorations in primary teeth by means of a survey of placement and replacement of restorations in 1996 and 2000/2001. Written alternative criteria for placement and replacement of restorations were provided for the participating clinicians. Details on 2281 restorations showed that primary caries was the main reason for inserting restorations in primary teeth. Replacements of failed restorations represented 14% of the fillings (n = 2040) in 1996 and 9% in 2000/2001 (n = 241). More than 80% of the fillings in primary teeth were of tooth-colored material, predominantly of the lightcured type. About 50% of failed amalgam and glass ionomer-type restorations were replaced due to secondary caries. The median age of amalgam restorations (3 years) was significantly higher than that of tooth-colored restorations (2 years). Any possible advantage of a cariostatic effect of glass ionomer-type materials is apparently annulled by their short longevity compared with amalgam.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Downloads

Published

2002-01-01