Gutiérrez MN, López SA

Language: Spanish
References: 27
Page: 123-130
PDF size: 454.36 Kb.

ABSTRACT

Introduction: the choice of the restorative material is critical for the restoration of primary teeth. Traditionally, stainless-steel crowns have been used in teeth with extensive crown destruction or after pulp treatment; however amalgam can be used too. There are studies that have measured the clinical success of these materials; however, there are no reports that have measured and compared the physical properties between them. Aim: evaluate the micro-hardness of dental amalgam and stainless steel crown. Method and materials: test objects of SDI amalgam type GS80 (15) and 3M stainless-steel crown (15) were made in two different times, some were stored for 4 years and the others for 3 days at 100% relative humidity. Two indentations were made to each test object with the Micromet 2001 microdurometer to determine the micro-hardness. The results obtained were evaluated by the ANOVA test (p≤0.05). Results: the average of the microhardness stainless steel crown was significantly higher than the average of the amalgam (p=0.000). The micro-hardness of the amalgam increases significantly with the storage time (p=0.000). Conclusions: the stainless-steel crown was the material with the highest micro-hardness. The micro-hardness values of the amalgam are time-dependent.

REFERENCES

1. Pinkhan JR, Casamassimo PS, Fields HW, McTigue, DLNowak A. Odontología Pediátrica. 3° ed. México DF: McGraw-Hill Interamericana; 2001.

2. McDonald R, Avery D. Odontología pediátrica y del adolescente. 6° ed. Madrid: Harcourt Brace; 1998.

3. Hutcheson C, Seale S, McWhorter A, Kerins C, Wright J. Multi-surface Composite vs Stainless Steel Crown Restorations After Mineral Trioxide Aggregate Pulpotomy: A Randomized Controlled Trial. Pediatr Dent. 2012; 34: 460-7.

4. Somnez D, Duruturk L. Success rate of calcium hydroxide pulpotomy in primary molars restored with amalgam and stainless steel crowns. British Dental J. 2010; 208: E18 1-5.

5. Holan G, Fuks A, Keltz N. Success rate of formocresol pulpotomy in primary molars restored with stainless steel crown vs amalgam. Pediatr Dent. 2001; 24: 212-6.

6. Haghgoo R, Abbasi F. Clinical and Radiographic Evaluation of Pulpotomized Primary Molars Restored with Stainless Steel Crown and Amalgam. Shiraz Univ Dent J. 2011; 12: 221-6.

7. Dhar V, Coll JA, Ginsber E, Ball BM, Chhibber S, Johnson M. Evidence-based Update of Pediatric Dental Restorative Procedures: Dental Materials. J Clin Pediatr Dent. 2015; 39: 303-10.

8. Croll T, Killian C. Zinc oxide-eugenol pulpotomy and stainless steel crown restoration of a primary molar. Quintessence Int. 1992; 23: 383-8.

9. Ross R. Preformed metal crowns for primary and permanent molar teeth: review of literature. Pediatr Dent. 2002; 24: 489-500.

10. American Academy of Pediatric Dentistry. Guideline on Pediatric Restorative Dentistry. Reference Manual. Pediatr Dent. 2014; 37: 226–34.

11. Al-Dlaigan Y. Pediatric dentist’s choices of restorative materials for primary molars. Pakistan oral and dental J. 2015; 35: 83-7.

12. Innes NPT, Ricketts D, Chong LY, Keightley AJ, Lamont T, Santamaria RM. Preformed crowns for decayed primary molar teeth. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2015, Issue 12. Art. No.: CD005512. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD005512.pub3.

13. Blumer S, Peretz B, Ratson T. The Use of Restorative Materials in Primary Molars among Pediatric Dentistry in Israel. J Clin Pediatr Dent. 2017; 41: 424-8.

14. Guzmán H. Polímeros, Resinas Compuestas. Biomateriales Odontológicos de uso clínico.4 ed. Bogotá: Ecoe; 2006. P. 175- 208.

15. Ribeiro S, Nascimento T, Centola A, Teixeira L, Maia S. Effect of Polishing Burns and Stones on the Micro-Hardness of Dental Amalgam. Braz Den J. 1991; 2: 135-43.

16. Reddy KS, Reddy S, Ravindhar P, Balaji K, Reddy H, Reddy A. Prevalence of dental caries among 6–12 years school children of Mahbubnagar District, Telangana State, India: A cross-sectional study. Indian J Dent Sci. 2017; 9: 1-7.

17. Bobu L, Barlean L, Murariu A, Barlean M. Caries-risk Evaluation of Schoolchildren in Iasi, Romania. Romanian J of Oral Rehab. 2017; 9: 101-6.

18. Barceló F, Velásquez N, Guerrero J. Resistencia al desalojo por empuje de materiales restaurativos directos. Rev Odont Mex. 2005; 9: 178-84.

19. Perdigoni M, Centola A, Froner I, Turbino M, Ribeiro S. Effect of the Polishing Technique at Low or High Speed on the Micro-hardness of Dental Amalgam. Braz Den J. 1991; 2: 51-7.

20. Prabhakar A, YavagalCh, Chakraborty A, Sugandhan S. Finite Element Stress Analysis of Stainless Steel Crowns. J Indian Soc Pedod Prev Dent. 2015; 33: 183-91.

21. Attari N, Roberts JF. Restoration of primary teeth with crowns: a systematic review of the literature. Eur Arch Paediatr Dent. 2006; 7: 58-62.

22. Threfall AG, Pilkington L, Milson KM, Blinkhorn AS, Tickle M. General dental practitioners’ views on the use of stainless steel crowns to restore primary molars. Br Dent J, 2005; 199: 453-455.

23. Einwag J, Dünninger P. Stainless steel crown versus multisurface amalgam restorations: An 8-year longitudinal clinical study. Quintessence Intl. 1996; 27: 321-23.

24. Seale S, Ross R. The Use of Stainless Steel Crowns: a Systematic Literature Review.Pediatr Dent 2015: 37: 147-62.

25. Nakai H, Ishizaki N, Nihei I. The microestructure and hardness of dental amalgam. J Osaka D Univ. 1970; 4: 131-149.

26. Beattie S,Taskonak B, Jones J, Chin J, Sanders B, Tomlin A, Weddell J. Fracture resistance of 3 types of primary esthetic stainless steel crowns. J Can Dent Assoc 2011; 77: b90.

27. Townsend JA; Knoell P, Yu Q, Zhang JF, Wang Y, Zhu H, Beattie S, Xu X. In vitro fracture resistance of three commercially available zirconia crowns for primary molars. Pediatr Dent. 2014; 38: 125-9.