Evidence-based Update of Pediatric Dental Restorative Procedures: Dental Materials

The science of dental materials and restorative care in children and adolescent is constantly evolving, and the ongoing search for ideal restorative materials has led to plethora of research. Aim: To provide an evidence base to assist dental practitioners choose appropriate restorative care for children and adolescents. Study design: This evidence-based review appraises this literature, primarily between the years 1995-2013, for efficacy of dental amalgam, composites, glass ionomer cements, compomers, preformed metal crowns and anterior esthetic restorations. The assessment of evidence for each dental material was based on a strong evidence, evidence in favor, expert opinion, and evidence against by consensus of the authors. Results: There is varying level of evidence for the use of restorative materials like amalgam, composites, glass ionomers, resin-modified glass-ionomers, compomers, stainless steel crowns and anterior crowns for both primary and permanent teeth. Conclusions: A substantial amount data is available on restorative materials used in pediatric dentistry; however, there exists substantial evidence from systematic reviews and randomized clinical trials and clinicians need to examine and understand the available literature evidence carefully to aid them in clinical decision making.

dental materials, evidence-based dentistry, pediatric dentistry, restorative dentistry, preventive dentistry

1. American Academy of Pediatric Dentistry. Guideline on Pediatric Restorative Dentistry. Pediatr Dent. 14;35(6):226-234. 2013.

2. Weyant RJ, Tracy SL, Anselmo T, Beltrán-Aguilar ED, Donley KJ, Frese WA, et al. Topical fluoride for caries prevention: Executive summary of the updated recommendations and supporting systematic review. J Am Dent Assoc.;144(11):1279-1291. 2013.

3. Beazoglou T, Eklund S, Heffley D, Meiers, J, Brown LJ, Bailit H. Economic impact of regulating the use of amalgam restorations. Public Health Rep.;122(5):657-63. 2007.

4. Department of Health and Human Services. Final Rule. Federal Register 75: Issue 112 (Friday, June 11, 2010). Available at: http://www.fda.gov/ downloads/medicaldevices/productsandmedicalprocedures/dentalproducts/dentalamalgam/ucm174024.pdf. Accessed September 4, 2013.

5. American Dental Association Council on Scientific Affairs. Statement on Dental Amalgam, Revised 2009. Chicago, Ill.; 2009. Available at: http://www.ada.org/sections/professionalResources/pdfs/amalgam_literature_review_0907.pdf. Accessed September 4, 2013.

6. Belliger DC, Trachtenberg F, Barregard L, Tavares M, Cernichiari E, Daniel D, McKinlay S. Neuropsychological and renal effects of dental amalgam in children: a randomized clinical trial. J Am Med Assoc.;295(15)1775-83. 2006.

7. DeRouen TA, Martin MD, Leroux BG, Townes BD, Woods JS, Leitão J, Castro-Caldas A, Luis H, Bernardo M, Rosenbaum G, Martins IP. Neurobehavioral effects of dental amalgam in children: a randomized clinical trial. J. Am Med Assoc.;295(15):1784-92. 2006.

8. Heintze SD, Rousson V. Clinical Effectiveness of Direct Class II Restorations – A Meta-Analysis. J Adhes Dent.;14:407-31. 2012.

9. Mickenautsch S, Yengopal V. Failure rate of high-viscosity GIC based ART compared with that of conventional amalgam restorations— evidence from an update of a systematic review. J South African Dent Assoc.;67(7):329-31. 2012.

10. Yengopal V, Harnekar SY, Patel N, Siegfried N. Dental fillings for the treatment of caries in the primary dentition (Review). Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2009, Issue 2. Art. No.: CD004483.

11. Manhart J, Chen H, Hamm G, Hickel R. Buonocore Memorial Lecture. Review of the clinical survival of direct and indirect restorations in posterior teeth of the permanent dentition. Oper Dent.; 29:481-508. 2004.

12. Soncini JA, Meserejian NN, Trachtenberg F, Tavares M, Hayes C. The longevity of amalgam versus compomer/composite restorations in posterior primary and permanent teeth: findings from the New England Children’s Amalgam Trial. J Am Dent Assoc.;138(6):763-72. 2007.

13. Mandari GJ, Frencken JE, van’t Hof MA. Six-year success rates of occlusal amalgam and glass-ionomer restorations placed using three minimal intervention approaches. Caries Res.37(4):246-53. 2003.

14. Bernardo M, Luis H, Martin MD, Leroux BG, Rue T, Leitão J J, DeRouen TA. Survival and reasons for failure of amalgam versus composite posterior restorations placed in a randomized clinical trial. J Am Dent Assoc.;138(6):775-83. 2007.

15. Qvist V, Laurberg L, Poulsen A, Teglers PT. Eight-year study on conventional glass ionomer and amalgam restorations in primary teeth. Acta Odontol Scand.;62(1):37-45. 2004.

16. Hickel R, Kaaden C, Paschos E, Buerkle V, Garcia-Godoy F, Manhart J. Longevity of occlusally-stressed restorations in posterior primary teeth. Am J Dent ;8(3):198-211. 2005.

17. Kilpatrick NM, Neumann A. Durability of amalgam in the restoration of class II cavities in primary molars: a systematic review of the literature Eur Arch Paediatr Dent.;8(1):5-13. 2007.

18. De Amorim RG, Leal SC, Mulder J, Creugers NH, Frencken JE. Amalgam and ART restorations in children: a controlled clinical trial. Clin Oral Investig.:18(1): 117-24. 2014.

19. Kavvadia K, Kakaboura A, Vanderas AP, Papagiannoulis L. Clinical evaluation of a compomer and an amalgam primary teeth class II restorations: a 2-year comparative study. Pediatr Dent.;26(3):245-250. 2004.

20. Fuks AB, Araujo FB, Osorio LB, Hadani PE, Pinto AS. Clinical and radiographic assessment of Class II esthetic restorations in primary molars. Pediatr Dent.;22(5):479-85. 2000.

21. Duggal MS, Toumba KJ, Sharma NK. Clinical performance of a compomer and amalgam for the interproximal restoration of primary molars: a 24 month evaluation. British Dental J.;193(6):339-42. 2002.

22. Donly KJ, Segura A, Kanellis M, Erickson RL. Clinical performance and caries inhibition of resin-modified glass ionomer cement and amalgam restorations. J Am Dent Assoc.;130(10):1459-66. 1999.

23. Leinfelder KF. Posterior composite resins. J Am Dent Assoc.;117(4):21E-26E. 1988.

24. Minguez N, Ellacuria J, Soler JI, Triana R, Ibaseta G. Advances in the history of composite resins. J Hist Dent.;51(3):103-5. 2003.

25. Opdam NJM, Bronkhorst EMB, Loomans BAC, Huysmans M-CDNJM. 12-year survival of composite vs. amalgam restorations. J Dent Res.;89(10):1063-67. 2010.

26. Heintze SD, Rousson V. Clinical effectiveness of direct Class II restorations - a meta-analysis. J Adhes Dent. ;14(5):407-31. 2012.

27. Burgess JO, Walker R, Davidson JM. Posterior resin based composite: review of the literature. Pediatr Dent.; 24(5):465-79. 2002.

28. Pallav P, De Gee AJ, Davidson CL, Erickson RL, Glasspoole EA. The influence of admixing microfiller to small-particle composite resins on wear, tensile strength, hardness and surface roughness. J Dent Res.;68(3):489-90. 1989.

29. Bernardo M, Luis H, Martin MD, Leroux BG, Rue T, Leitão J, DeRouen TA. Survival and reasons for failure of amalgam versus composite posterior restorations placed in a randomized clinical trial. J Am Dent Assoc.;138(6):775-83. 2007.

30. Antony K, Genser D, Hiebinger C, Windisch F. Longevity of dental amalgam in comparison to composite materials. GMS Health Technol Assess. ;13(4): Doc12. 2008.

31. Fleisch AF, Sheffield PE, Chinn C, Edelstein BL, Landrigan PJ. Bisphenol A and related compounds in dental materials. Pediatrics.;126(4):760-8. 2010.

32. Alves dos Santos MP, Luiz RR, Maia LC. Randomised trial of resinbased restorations in Class I and Class II beveled preparations in primary molars: 48-month results. J Dent. ;38(6):451-9. 2010.

33. Antony K, Genser D, Hiebinger C, Windisch F. Longevity of dental amalgam in comparison to composite materials. GMS Health Technol Assess.;13(4):Doc12. 2008.

34. Dijken JW, Pallesen U. A six-year prospective randomized study of a nano-hybrid and a conventional hybrid resin composite in Class II restorations. Dent Mater. ; 29(2):191-8. 2013.

35. Krämer N, García-Godoy F, Reinelt C, Feilzer AJ, Frankenberger R. Nanohybrid vs. fine hybrid composite in extended Class II cavities after six years. Dent Mater.;27(5):455-64. 2011.

36. Shi L, Wang X, Zhao Q, Zhang Y, Zhang L, Ren Y, Chen Z. Evaluation of packable and conventional hybrid resin composites in Class I restorations: three-year results of a randomized, double-blind and controlled clinical trial. Oper Dent.;35(1):11-9. 2010.

37. Ernst CP, Brandenbusch M, Meyer G, Canbek K, Gottschalk F, Willershausen B. Two-year clinical performance of a nanofiller vs a fine-particle hybrid resin composite. Clin Oral Investig.;10(2):119-25. 2006.

38. Wilson AD, Kent BE. A new translucent cement for dentistry. The glass ionomer cement . Br Dent J.;132(4):133-5. 1972.

39. Mitra SB, Kedrowski BL. Long-term mechanical properties of glass ionomers. Dent Mat;10(2):78-82. 1994.

40. Douglas WH, Lin CP. Strength of the new systems. In: Hunt PR, ed. Glass Ionomers: The Next Generation. Philadelphia, Pa: International Symposia in Dentistry, PC; 1994:pp. 209-216.

41. Tam LE, Chan GP, Yim D. In vitro caries inhibition effects by conventional and resin-modified glass ionomer restorations. Oper Dent ;22(1):4- 14. 1997.

42. Tyas MJ. Cariostatic effect of glass ionomer cements: A 5-year clinical study. Aust Dent J.;36(3):236-9. 1991.

43. Swartz ML, Phillips RW, Clark HE. Long-term fluoride release from glass ionomer cements. J Dent Res.;63(2):158-60.1984.

44. Forsten L. Fluoride release and uptake by glass ionomers and related materials and its clinical effect. Biomaterials.;19(6):503-8. 1998.

45. Donly KJ, Nelson JJ. Fluoride release of restorative materials exposed to a fluoridated dentifrice. ASDC J Dent Child.; 64(4):249-50. 1997.

46. Donly KJ, Istre S, Istre T. In vitro enamel remineralization at orthodontic band margins cemented with glass ionomer cement. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop.; 107(5):461-4. 1995.

47. Chadwick BL, Evans DJ. Restoration of class II cavities in primary molar teeth with conventional and resin modified glass ionomer cements: a systematic review of the literature. Eur Arch Paediatr Dent.;8(1):14-21. 2007.

48. Toh SL, Messer LB. Evidence-based assessment of tooth-colored restorations in proximal lesions of primary molars. Pediatr Dent.;29(1):8-15. 2007.

49. Daou MH, Tavernier B, Meyer JM. Two-year clinical evaluation of three restorative materials in primary molars. J Clin Pediatr Dent.;34(1):53-8. 2009.

50. Mickenautsch S, Yengopal V, Leal SC, Oliveira LB, Bezerra AC, Bonecker M. Absence of carious lesions at margins of glass-ionomer and amalgam restorations: a meta-analysis. European J Paediatric Dent.;10(1): 41-6. 2009.

51. Yengopal V, Mickenautsch S., Caries-preventive effect of resin-modified glass-ionomer cement (RM-GIC) versus composite resin: a quantitative systematic review. Eur Arch Paediatr Dent.;12(1): 5-14. 2011.

52. Heintze SD, Ruffieux C, Rousson V. Clinical performance of cervical restorations--a meta-analysis. Dent Mater.;26(10):993-1000. 2010.

53. Frankenberger R., Garcia-Godoy F., Kramer N., Clinical Performance of Viscous Glass Ionomer Cement in Posterior Cavities over Two Years. Int J Dentistry., Article ID 781462. 2009.

54. Wambier DS, dos Santos FA, Guedes-Pinto AC, Jaeger RG, Simionato MR. Ultrastructural and microbiological analysis of the dentin layers affected by caries lesions in primary molars treated by minimal intervention. Pediatr Dent.;29(3):228-34. 2007.

55. Mandari GJ, Frencken JE, van’t Hof MA. Six years success rates of occlusal amalgam and glass ionomer restorations placed using minimal intervention approaches. Caries Res.;37 (4): 246-53. 2003.

56. Dulgergil DT, Soyman M, Civelek A. Atraumatic restorative treatment with resin-modified glass ionomer material: Short-term results of a pilot study. Med Princ Pract.;14(3):277-80. 2005.

57. Alves FB, Lenzi TL, Guglielmi Cde A, Resi A, Loguercio AD, Carvalho TS, Raggio DP. The bonding of glass ionomer cements to caries-affected primary tooth dentin. Pediatr Dent.;35 (4):320-4. 2013.

58. van’t Hof M.A., Frenecken J.E., van Palenstein Helderman W.H., Holmgren C.J. The Atraumatic Restorative Treatment (ART) approach for managing dental caries: a meta-analysis. Int Dent J.; 56 ,345-51. 2006.

59. Frenecken JE, van’t Hof MA, Taifour D,Al-Zaher I. Effectiveness of ART and traditional amalgam approach in restoring single surface cavities in posterior teeth of permanent dentitions in school children after 6.3 years. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol.;35(3):207-14. 2007.

60. Raggio D.P., Hesse D., Lenzi T.L., Guglielmi .C.A.B., Braga M.M. Is atraumatic restorative treatment an option for restoring occluso-proximal caries lesions in primary teeth? A systematic review and meta-analysis . Int J Paediatric Dentistry.;23:435-43. 2013.

61. Nicholson JW. Polyacid-modified composite resins (‘compomers’) and their use in clinical dentistry. Dent Mater.;23(5):615-22. 2007.

62. Cildir SK, Sandalli N. Fluoride release/uptake of glass-ionomer cements and polyacid-modified composite resins. Dent Mater J.;24(1):92-7. 2005.

63. Peng D, Smales RJ, Yip HK, Shu M. In vitro fluoride release from aesthetic restorative materials following recharging with APF gel. Aust Dent J. 45(3):198-203. 2000.

64. Daou MH, Attin T, Göhring TN. Clinical success of compomer and amalgam restorations in primary molars: Follow up in 36 months. Schweiz Monatsschr Zahnmed.;119(11):1082-8. 2009.

65. Attin T, Opatowski A, Meyer C, Zingg-Meyer B, Mönting JS. Class II restorations with a polyacid-modified composite resin in primary molars placed in a dental practice: results of a two-year clinical evaluation. Oper Dent. 25(4): 259-64. 2000.

66. Attin T, Opatowski A, Meyer C, Zingg-Meyer B, Buchalla W, Mönting JS. Three-year follow up assessment of class II restorations in primary molars with a polyacid-modified composite resin and a hybrid composite. Am J Dent.;4(3): 148-52. 2001.

67. Welbury RR, Shaw AJ, Murray JJ, Gordon PH, McCabe JF. Clinical evaluation of paired compomer and glass ionomer restorations in primary molars: final results after 42 months. Br Dent J.;189(2):93-7. 2000.

68. Atieh M. Stainless steel crown versus modified open-sandwich restorations for primary molars: a 2-year randomized clinical trial. Int J Paediatr Dent.;18(5):325-32. 2008.

69. Hutcheson C, Seale NS, 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.;34(7):460-467. 2012.

70. Hickel R, Kaaden C, Paschos E, Buerkle V, Garcia-Godoy F, Manhart J. Longevity of occlusally-stressed restorations in posterior primary teeth. Am J Dent.;18:198-211. 2005.

71. Randall RC. Preformed metal crowns for primary and permanent molar teeth: review of the literature. Pediatr Dent.;24(5):489-500. 2002.

72. Attari N, Roberts JF. Restoration of primary teeth with crowns: a systematic review of the literature. Eur Arch Paediatr Dent.;7(2):58-62. 2006.

73. Innes NP, Ricketts D, Evans DJ. Preformed metal crowns for decayed primary molar teeth. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2007 Jan 24;(1):CD005512.

74. Randall RC, Vrijhoef MM, Wilson NH. Efficacy of preformed metal crowns vs. amalgam restorations in primary molars: a systematic review. J Am Dent Assoc.;131(3):337-43. 2000.

75. Sonmez D, Duruturk L. Success rate of calcium hydroxide pulpotomy in primary molars restored with amalgam and stainless steel crowns. Br Dent J.;208(9):E18. 2010.

76. Bazargan H, Chopra S, Gatonye L, Jones H, Kaur T. Permanent restorations on pulpotomized primary molars: An evidence-based review of the literature. 200 http://www.dentistry.utoronto.ca/system/files/pulpotomizedprimarymolars.PDF. Accessed Oct. 17, 2013.

77. Hutcheson C, Seale NS, 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.;34(7):460-467. 2012.

78. Zagdwon AM, Fayle SA, Pollard MA. A prospective clinical trial comparing preformed metal crowns and cast restorations for defective first permanent molars. Eur J Paediatr Dent.;4(3):138-42. 2003.

79. Roberts JF, Attari N, Sherriff M. The survival of resin modified glass ionomer and stainless steel crown restorations in primary molars, placed in a specialist paediatric dental practice. Br Dent J.;198(7):427-31. 2005

80. Shah PV, Lee JY, Wright JT. Clinical success and parental satisfaction with anterior preveneered primary stainless steel crowns. Pediatr Dent. 26(5):391-5. 2004.

81. Waggoner WF. Anterior crowns for primary anterior teeth: an evidence based assessment of the literature. Eur Arch Paediatr Dent. 2006;7(2):53-57.

82. Waggoner WF. Restoring primary anterior teeth. Pediatr Dent.;24(5):511- 516. 2002.

83. Croll TP, Bar-Zion Y, Segura A, Donly KJ. Clinical performance of resin-modified glass ionomer cement restorations in primary teeth. A retrospective evaluation. J Am Dent Assoc.;132(8):1110-1116. 2001.

84. Donly KJ. Restorative dentistry for children. Dent Clin North Am.;57(1):75-82. 2013.

85. Lee JK. Restoration of primary anterior teeth: review of the literature. Pediatr Dent.;24(5):506-510. 2002.

86. Kupietzky A, Waggoner WE, Galea J. Long-term photographic and radiographic assessment of bonded resin composite strip crowns for primary incisors: Results after 3 years. Pediatr Dent.;27(3):221-225. 2005.

87. Ram D, Fuks AB. Clinical performance of resin-bonded composite strip crowns in primary incisors: a retrospective study. Int J Paediatr Dent.;16(1):49-54. 2006.

88. Roberts C, Lee JY, Wright JT. Clinical evaluation of and parental satisfaction with resin-faced stainless steel crowns. Pediatr Dent.;23(1):28-31. 2001.

89. MacLean J, Champagne C, Waggoner W, Ditmyer M, Casamassimo P. Clinical outcomes for primary anterior teeth treated with preveneered stainless steel crowns. Pediatr Dent.;29(5):377-382. 2007.