This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Qvist, V. Articles by Teglers, P.T. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Qvist, V. Articles by Teglers, P.T. Pubmed/NCBI databases Substance via MeSH Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

Longevity and Cariostatic Effects of Everyday Conventional Glass-ionomer and Amalgam Restorations in Primary Teeth: Three-year Results

Department of Cariology and Endodontics, School of Dentistry, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Copenhagen, 20 Norre Alle, Copenhagen, Denmark

L. Laurberg

Public Dental Health Service, Værløse, Denmark

A. Poulsen

Public Dental Health Service, Hillerød, Denmark

P.T. Teglers

Dental Auxiliary Division, School of Dentistry, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark

The aim of this study was to compare the longevity and cariostatic effects of everyday conventional glass-ionomer and amalgam restorations in primary teeth. The materials consisted of 515 Ketac-Fil glass-ionomer restorations and 543 Dispersalloy amalgam restorations prepared in 666 children, from 3 to 13 years of age, by 14 dentists within the Danish Public Dental Health Service in the municipalities of Vaerlose and Hillerød. The restorations, of which 79% were of the Class II type, were in contact with 593 unrestored surfaces in adjacent primary and permanent teeth. After 3 years, 6% of the patients had dropped out of the study, and 33% of the teeth were exfoliated with the restoration in situ. A further 37% of the glass-ionomer and 18% of the amalgam restorations were recorded as failed (p < 0.001). The frequency of failures was highest for Class II glass-ionomer restorations, which showed a 50% median survival time of only 34 months, because of many fractures, while the 75% survival time for Class II amalgam restorations just exceeded the actual 36 months (p < 0.001). Caries progression was most often recorded in surfaces adjacent to amalgam restorations, and 21% of these surfaces needed restorative treatment vs. 12% of the surfaces adjacent to glass-ionomer restorations (p < 0.01). The three-year results indicated that conventional glass ionomer is not an appropriate alternative to amalgam for all types of restorations in primary teeth. In particular, the short longevity of Class II glass-ionomer restorations could not be compensated for by the reduced caries progression and need for restorative therapy of adjacent surfaces.

Key Words: clinical trials • dental amalgam • dental restoration (permanent) • dentition (primary) • glass-ionomer cements • pedodontics.

Journal of Dental Research, Vol. 76, No. 7, 1387-1396 (1997)
DOI: 10.1177/00220345970760070901


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				C. W. HAVEMAN, J. B. SUMMITT, J. O. BURGESS, and K. CARLSON Three restorative materials and topical fluoride gel used in xerostomic patients: A clinical comparison J Am Dent Assoc, February 1, 2003; 134(2): 177 - 184. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				T. P. CROLL, Y. BAR-ZION, A. SEGURA, and K. J. DONLY Clinical performance of resin-modified glass ionomer cement restorations in primary teeth: A retrospective evaluation J Am Dent Assoc, August 1, 2001; 132(8): 1110 - 1116. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				J.W.V. van Dijken, C. Kieri, and M. Carlen Longevity of Extensive Class II Open-sandwich Restorations with a Resin-modified Glass-ionomer Cement Journal of Dental Research, July 1, 1999; 78(7): 1319 - 1325. [Abstract] [PDF]