Abstract
Data sources
SciVerse Scopus, ISIS Web of Science, Cochrane library, Medline/PubMed. Studies published from 1996 to 2017 in English were considered.
Study selection
Two independent reviewers screened the literature. Randomised clinical trials, non-randomised clinical trials with parallel groups or single group, retrospective studies) evaluating different posterior restorations (class I, class II restorations and crowns) with different materials (amalgam, compomer, composite, glass ionomer cement, stainless steel crown) placed in primary teeth by reporting different outcomes measures (survival rate, success rate, annual failure rate).
Data extraction and synthesis
Two independent reviewers extracted data. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane tool. A qualitative analysis was conducted.
Results
Thirty-one studies were included. Seven different materials were used for restorations: amalgam (six studies), compomer (nine studies), composite (six studies), conventional glass ionomer cement (five studies), metal-reinforced glass ionomer cement (MRGIC) (four studies), resin-modified glass ionomer cement (ten studies), and stainless steel crown (SSC) (three studies). When considering the annual failure rate (AFR), composite showed the lowest (1.7-12.9%) and MRGIC showed the highest (10.0-29.9%). For the success rate, SSC presented the highest (96.1%) and MRGIC presented the lowest (57.4%). Class I restorations and restorations placed under the use of rubber dam revealed better results in both AFR and success rate. The main reason for failure was secondary caries.
Conclusions
There is a large variation in longevity of posterior restorations in primary teeth. Secondary caries is the main reason causing failure.
Similar content being viewed by others
Log in or create a free account to read this content
Gain free access to this article, as well as selected content from this journal and more on nature.com
or
References
Duangthip D, Chen KJ, Gao SS, Lo ECM, Chu CH . Managing Early Childhood Caries with Atraumatic Restorative Treatment and Topical Silver and Fluoride Agents. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2017; 14: pii:E1204.
Demarco FF, Corrêa MB, Cenci MS, Moraes RR, Opdam NJ . Longevity of posterior composite restorations: not only a matter of materials. Dent Mater 2012; 28: 87–101.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Additional information
Address for correspondence: Marcos Britto Corrêa, Graduate Program in Dentistry, Federal University of Pelotas, 457, Goncalves Chaves St. 5th floor, Pelotas 96015-560, Brazil. E-mail: marcosbrittocorrea@hotmail.com
Chisini LA, Collares K, Cademartori MG, de Oliveira LJC, Conde MCM, Demarco FF, Corrêa MB. Restorations in primary teeth: a systematic review on survival and reasons for failures. Int J Paediatr Dent 2018; 28: 123–139.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Gao, S. The longevity of posterior restorations in primary teeth. Evid Based Dent 19, 44 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.ebd.6401302
Published:
Version of record:
Issue date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.ebd.6401302
This article is cited by
-
Restaurative Therapieoptionen im Milchgebiss – von der Füllung bis zur Krone
wissen kompakt (2022)
