Literature DB >> 12412959

The use of amalgam in pediatric dentistry.

Anna B Fuks1.   

Abstract

Amalgam has been widely utilized to restore posterior teeth in pediatric dentistry, and is still taught as the material of choice for Class I and Class II restorations in many dental schools in the United States and Canada. Results of clinical trials are difficult to compare due to their heterogenicity, mainly due to differences in caries risk, operator skills, study duration, or patients' age. Thus, the different studies report failure rates of amalgams ranging from 12% to over 70%. Treatment of caries should meet the needs of each particular patient, based on his/her caries risk. In general, for small occlusal lesions, a conservative preventive resin restoration, using composite or compomer in conjunction with sealant, would be more appropriate than the classic Class I amalgam preparation. For proximal lesions, amalgam would be indicated for 2-surface Class II preparations that do not extend beyond the line angles of primary teeth. This recommendation might not be appropriate for high-risk patients or for restoring first primary molars in children 4 years of age and younger where stainless steel crowns have demonstrated better longevity. Currently, amalgam demonstrates the best clinical success for Class II restorations that extend beyond the proximal line angles of permanent molars.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2002        PMID: 12412959

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Pediatr Dent        ISSN: 0164-1263            Impact factor:   1.874


  9 in total

1.  Effect of different adhesive protocols vs calcium hydroxide on primary tooth pulp with different remaining dentin thicknesses:24-month results.

Authors:  Bülent Büyükgüral; Zafer C Cehreli
Journal:  Clin Oral Investig       Date:  2007-09-25       Impact factor: 3.573

Review 2.  Atraumatic restorative treatment versus amalgam restoration longevity: a systematic review.

Authors:  Steffen Mickenautsch; Veerasamy Yengopal; Avijit Banerjee
Journal:  Clin Oral Investig       Date:  2009-08-18       Impact factor: 3.573

3.  The dental amalgam toxicity fear: a myth or actuality.

Authors:  Monika Rathore; Archana Singh; Vandana A Pant
Journal:  Toxicol Int       Date:  2012-05

4.  Direct contra naïve-indirect comparison of clinical failure rates between high-viscosity GIC and conventional amalgam restorations: an empirical study.

Authors:  Steffen Mickenautsch; Veerasamy Yengopal
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2013-10-28       Impact factor: 3.240

5.  Influence of the indirect restoration design on the fracture resistance: a finite element study.

Authors:  May Lei Mei; Ya Ming Chen; Hao Li; Chun Hung Chu
Journal:  Biomed Eng Online       Date:  2016-01-08       Impact factor: 2.819

6.  Placement of Posterior Composite Restorations: A Cross-Sectional Study of Dental Practitioners in Al-Kharj, Saudi Arabia.

Authors:  Mohamed M Awad; Mansour Alradan; Nawaf Alshalan; Ali Alqahtani; Feras Alhalabi; Mohammed Ali Salem; Ahmed Rabah; Ali Alrahlah
Journal:  Int J Environ Res Public Health       Date:  2021-11-25       Impact factor: 3.390

7.  Comparative Evaluation of Microleakage of Various Restorative Materials in Pulpotomized Primary Molars - In Vitro Study.

Authors:  Jeswin M Thomas; Sham S Bhat; A Esai Amutha Prabha; Anoop Harris; K Rinu; Amala P Mohan
Journal:  J Pharm Bioallied Sci       Date:  2022-07-13

8.  Dental amalgam exposure can elevate urinary mercury concentrations in children.

Authors:  Hye-Jin Baek; Eun-Kyong Kim; Sang Gyu Lee; Seong-Hwa Jeong; Jun Sakong; Anwar T Merchant; Sang-Uk Im; Keun-Bae Song; Youn-Hee Choi
Journal:  Int Dent J       Date:  2016-02-01       Impact factor: 2.607

9.  Dental amalgam exposure and urinary mercury levels in children: the New England Children's Amalgam Trial.

Authors:  Nancy Nairi Maserejian; Felicia L Trachtenberg; Susan F Assmann; Lars Barregard
Journal:  Environ Health Perspect       Date:  2008-02       Impact factor: 9.031

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.