Juárez-López LA, Rivera-Coello C, Gabriela Ayala-Zúñiga G

Language: Spanish
References: 32
Page: 30-34
PDF size: 84.87 Kb.

ABSTRACT

The aim of the present study was to evaluate the clinical behavior of a compomer, Compoglass restoration in the management of caries in primary molar teeth. Forty children, aged 6 to 8 years old with caries were selected. Two different restorations were placed in each subject; Eighty restorations: forty with Compoglass compomer and forty with Tetric composite, three clinical evaluations were made at three, six and twelve months using the USPHS criteria. There weren’t differences in marginal adaptation and colour between restorative materials. There weren’t secondary caries in cases restored by Compoglass, five of the primary molar restored with composite had secondary caries after twelve months (p < 0.05). The combined properties of fluoride release and aesthetics indicate that Compoglass can be an appropriate alternative material for restoration in primary molars.

REFERENCES

1. Irigoyen ME. Caries dental en escolares del Distrito Federal. Salud Publica Mex 1997; 39(2): 133-136.

2. Rosello Me, Boj QJ, Canalda SC. Utilización de la amalgama en la odontopediatría actual. Dental Word 1997; 7(5): 43-7.

3. Saldaña AF, Ramírez EJ. Liberación de flúor de los ionómeros de vidrio. ADM 55(5): 250.

4. Christensen J. Restorative dentistry for pediatric teeth: state of the art 2001. JADA 2001; 132: 379-381.

5. Farozi AM, Lupi-Pegurier L, Muller M, Weerheijm Kl. Restorative materials used on primary teeth; a comparative study between two universities. ASDC J Dent Child 2001; 68: 339-341.

6. Papathanasiu AG, Curzon EJ, Fairpo CG. The influence of restorative material on the survival rate of restorations in primary molars. Pediatric Dentistry 1994; 16(4): 282-8.

7. Saldaña AF. Toxicidad de la amalgama dental revisión bibliográfica. Rev ADM 1996; 13(6): 277-281.

8. Eley BM, Cox W. The release absorption and possible health effects of mercury from dental amalgam: review of recent finding. Brish Dental J 1993; 20: 355-9.

9. Ulukppi I. Mercury hipersensitivity from amalgam: report case. J Dent Child 1995; 62(5): 363-4.

10. Araujo R. Los compómeros. Rev Odón Tol 1997; 25(2): 16-9.

11. García-Godoy F, El-Calla IH. Mechanical properties of compomer restorative materials. Oper Dent 1999; 24: 2-8.

12. Tariim B, Hafez AA, Susuki SH, Susuki S, Cox CF. Biocompatibily of compomer restorative systems on noexposed dental pulps of primate teeth. OPEC DNT 1997; 22: 149-158.

13. García-Godoy F. Restauración de molares primarios con Compoglass. Signature Int 1997; 1(1): 16-7.

14. Trummler A, Gaitsch M, Muller D, Weiss W. Resultados clínicos de un compómero a los dos años. Signature Int 1998; 3(1): 2-5.

15. Cvar JF, Ryge G. Criteria for the clinical evaluation of dental restorative materials. U.S. Public Health Services Publication No. 709-244. San Francisco, U.S. Government Printing Office; 1971.

16. Cortes O, García C, Pérez L. Pérez D. Marginal microleakage around enamel and cementum surface of two compomers. Pediatr Dent 1998; 22(4): 307-310.

17. Tyas MJ. Clinical evaluation of a poliacid-modified resin composite (compomer). Oper Dent 1998; 23: 77-80.

18. Cagidiaco MC, Ferrari M, Davidson CL. Comparison of in vivo and in vitro demineralized dentin with phosphoric and maleic acid. J Dent Child 1997: 17-21.

19. Tyas MJ. Clinical evaluation of a poliacid.modified resin composite compomer. Oper Dent 1998; 23: 77-80.

20. García-Godoy F, Hosaya Y. Bonding mechanism of Compoglass to dentin in primary teeth. J Clin Pediatr Dent 1998; 22: 217-20.

21. García-Godoy F, Hosaya Y, Berberia E. Denton bond strengh of fluoride realeasing materials. Am J Dent 1996: 80-2.

22. Abate PF, Bertacchini SM, Polack MA, Macchini RL. Adhesion of compomer to dental structures. Quintessence Int 1997; 28: 509-12.

23. Yamamoto A, Y, Unesaky T. Fluoride uptake from fluoride releasing restorative material in vivo and in vitro. Caries Res 2001; 35: 111-115.

24. Show AJ, Carrick T, McCabe JF. Fluoride release from glasss ionomer and compomer restorative materials: 6 month data. J Dent 1998; 26: 355-9.

25. Eliades G, Kakaboura A, Palaghias G. Acid-bas reaction and release profiles in modified composite restoratives (compomers). Dent Mater 1998; 14: 57-63.

26. Fruits TJ, Duncarson MG, Miller RC. Bond strengths of fluoride-releasing restorative materials. Am J Dent 1996; 9: 219-22.

27. Dionysopoulos P, Kotsanos N. Papadogiannis Y, Kanstantinidis A. Artificial secondary caries around to new F-containig restoratives. Oper Dent 1998; 23: 81-6.

28. Burke FJ, Fleming GJ, Owen FJ, Watson DJ. Materials for restoration of primary teeth: Glass ionomer derivatives and compomers. Dent Update 2002; 29(1): 10-14.

29. Gross LC, Griffen AL, Casamassimo PS. Compomers as class II restorations in primary molars. Pediatr Dent 2001; 23(1): 24-27.

30. YIP, H. K. The comparison of the fluoride uptake and release of a compomer and light-cured glass ionomer cements. J Dent Res 1995; 74: 434. Special issue. Abstract No. 272.

31. YIP, H. K. The assessment of the fluoride uptake and release from resin-modified glass-ionomer restorative materials and fissure sealants. J Dent Res 1996; 77: 180. Special issue. Abstract No. 1303.

32. Edwolsen N, Herwing L, Goël M. Materiales restaurativos anticariogénicos. Revista ADM 199; 56(2): 70-75.