PURPOSE: To compile a survey of the longevity and reasons for failure of stainless steel crowns, amalgam, glass-ionomer, composite and compomer restorations in stress-bearing cavities of primary molars. METHODS: This work reviewed the dental literature of 1971 up to July 2003 for longitudinal, controlled clinical studies and retrospective cross-sectional studies. Only studies investigating the clinical performance of restorations in primary teeth with an observation period of at least 2 years were included. Annual failure rates of stainless steel crowns, amalgam, glass-ionomer, composite and compomer restorations were determined and failure reasons were discussed. RESULTS: Annual failure rates in stress-bearing cavities of primary molars were determined to be: 0-14% for stainless steel crowns, 0-35.3% for amalgam restorations, 0-25.8% for glass-ionomer restorations, 2-29.1% for atraumatic restorative treatments, 0-15% for composite restorations, and 0-11 for compomer restorations. Main reasons for failure were secondary caries, marginal deficiencies, fracture, and wear.
PURPOSE: To compile a survey of the longevity and reasons for failure of stainless steel crowns, amalgam, glass-ionomer, composite and compomer restorations in stress-bearing cavities of primary molars. METHODS: This work reviewed the dental literature of 1971 up to July 2003 for longitudinal, controlled clinical studies and retrospective cross-sectional studies. Only studies investigating the clinical performance of restorations in primary teeth with an observation period of at least 2 years were included. Annual failure rates of stainless steel crowns, amalgam, glass-ionomer, composite and compomer restorations were determined and failure reasons were discussed. RESULTS:Annual failure rates in stress-bearing cavities of primary molars were determined to be: 0-14% for stainless steel crowns, 0-35.3% for amalgam restorations, 0-25.8% for glass-ionomer restorations, 2-29.1% for atraumatic restorative treatments, 0-15% for composite restorations, and 0-11 for compomer restorations. Main reasons for failure were secondary caries, marginal deficiencies, fracture, and wear.
Authors: D Khvostenko; S Salehi; S E Naleway; T J Hilton; J L Ferracane; J C Mitchell; J J Kruzic Journal: Dent Mater Date: 2015-04-18 Impact factor: 5.304