In Vitro and Clinical Outcome of Sandwich Restorations with a BulkFill Flowable Composite Liner for Pulpotomized Primary Teeth

The present study determined whether primary molar pulpotomies showed equal in vitro and clinical success when restored with sandwich restoration with a bulk-fill flowable composite (BFRBC) liner versus a stainless steel crown (SSC) restoration. Study design: Sixty extracted human primary second molars with proximo-occlusal cavities were selected for in vitro test. The specimens were randomly divided into three groups (n = 20) and restored with sandwich restoration with a BFRBC liner, composite (RBC) restoration and SSC. In addition, sixty teeth were selected from 20 children and each child had at least three primary molars (first and/or second primary molar) requiring pulpotomy. The patients were recalled for clinical and radiographic evaluation at approximately 6- and 12-month intervals. Results: The SSC restoration had significantly higher microleakage than the others. Although there was a significant difference between the RBC and the SSC (P = 0.02), the differences between the BFRBC and the RBC, as well as between the BFRBC and the SSC, were not statistically significant at the 12-month radiographic evaluation (P = 0.33 and P = 0.11, respectively). Conclusion: In laboratory conditions, sandwich restoration with BFRBC liner showed a superior seal margins of pulpotomized primary molars. Based clinical and radiographical evaluation, teeth treated with formocresol pulpotomy and restored with sandwich restoration with BFRBC liner were as successful as those restored with a SSC.

1. Fuks AB. Current concepts in vital primary pulp therapy. Eur J Paediatr Dent 3:115-120, 2002.

2. Guelmann M, Shapira J, Silva DR, Fuks AB. Esthetic restorative options for pulpotomized primary molars: A review of literature. J Clin Pediatr Dent 36:123-126, 2011.

3. Farooq NS, Coll JA, Kuwabara A, Shelton P. Success rates of formocresol pulpotomy and indirect pulp therapy in the treatment of deep dentinal caries in primary teeth. Pediatr Dent 22:278-286, 2000.

4. Guelmann M, Fair J, Bimstein E. Permanent versus temporary restorations after emergency pulpotomies in primary molars. Pediatr Dent 27:478-481, 2005.

5. Holan G, Fuks AB, Ketlz N. Success rate of formocresol pulpotomy in primary molars restored with stainless steel crown vs amalga. Pediatr Dent 24:212-216, 2002.

6. Seale NS. The use of stainless steel crowns. Pediatr Dent 24:501-505, 2002.

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

8. Randall RC. Preformed metal crowns for primary and permanent molar teeth: review of the literature. Pediatr Dent 24:489-50, 2002.

9. 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 34:460-467, 2012.

10. AAPD. Guideline on pulp therapy for primary and young permanent teeth. Pediatr Dent 30:170-174, 2008.

11. Coser RM, Gondim JO, Aparecida Giro EM. Evaluation of 2 endodontic techniques used to treat human primary molars with furcation radiolucency area: A 48-month radiographic study. Quintessence Int 39:549-557, 2008.

12. Bargrizan M, Mirkarimi M, Rezamand M, Eskandarion S. Microleakage and Micrographic Evaluation of Composite Restorations with Various Bases over ZOE Layer in Pulpotomized Primary Molars. J Dent (Tehran) 8:178-185, 2011.

13. Roggendorf MJ, Kramer N, Appelt A, Naumann M, Frankenberger R. Marginal quality of flowable 4-mm base vs. conventionally layered resin composite. J Dent 2011;39:643-647.

14. Ilie N, Hickel R. Macro-, micro- and nano-mechanical investigations on silorane and methacrylate-based composites. Dent Mater 25:810-819, 2009.

15. Ilie N, Hickel R. Investigations on mechanical behaviour of dental composites. Clin Oral Investig 13:427-438, 2009.

16. Chuang SF, Jin YT, Liu JK, Chang CH, Shieh DB. Influence of flowable composite lining thickness on Class II composite restorations. Oper Dent 29:301-308, 2004.

17. Campodonico CE, Tantbirojn D, Olin PS, Versluis A. Cuspal deflection and depth of cure in resin-based composite restorations filled by using bulk, incremental and transtooth-illumination techniques. J Am Dent Assoc 142:1176-1182, 2011.

18. Moorthy A, Hogg CH, Dowling AH, Grufferty BF, Benetti AR, Fleming GJ. Cuspal deflection and microleakage in premolar teeth restored with bulk-fill flowable resin-based composite base materials. J Dent 40:500-505, 2012.

19. Sadeghi M, Lynch CD. The effect of flowable materials on the microleakage of Class II composite restorations that extend apical to the cemento-enamel junction. Oper Dent 34:306-311, 2009.

20. Versluis A, Douglas WH, Cross M, Sakaguchi RL. Does an incremental filling technique reduce polymerization shrinkage stresses? J Dent Res 75:871-878, 1996

21. Ilie N, Hickel R. Investigations on a methacrylate-based flowable composite based on the SDR technology. Dent Mater 27:348-355, 2011.

22. Cara RR, Fleming GJ, Palin WM, Walmsley AD, Burke FJ. Cuspal deflection and microleakage in premolar teeth restored with resin-based composites with and without an intermediary flowable layer. J Dent 35:482-489, 2007.

23. Subramaniam P, Konde S, Mathew S, Sugnani S. Mineral Trioxide Aggregate as Pulp Capping Agent for Primary Teeth Pulpotomy: 2 Year Follow Up Study. J Clin Pediatr Dent 33:311-314, 2009.

24. Zurn D, Seale NS. Light-cured calcium hydroxide vs formocresol in human primary molar pulpotomies: a randomized controlled trial. Pediatr Dent 30:34-41, 2008.

25. Agamy HA, Bakry NS, Mounir MM, Avery DR. Comparison of mineral trioxide aggregate and formocresol as pulp-capping agents in pulpotomized primary teeth. Pediatr Dent 26:302-309, 2004.

26. Zimmerman JA, Feigal RJ, Till MJ, Hodges JS. Parental attitudes on restorative materials as factors influencing current use in pediatric dentistry. Pediatr Dent 31:63-70, 2009.

27. el-Kalla IH, Garcia-Godoy F. Fracture strength of adhesively restored pulpotomized primary molars. ASDC J Dent Child 66:238-242, 1999.

28. Guelmann M, Bookmyer KL, Villalta P, Garcia-Godoy F. Microleakage of restorative techniques for pulpotomized primary molars. J Dent Child (Chic) 71:209-211, 2004.

29. Shiflett K, White SN. Microleakage of cements for stainless steel crowns. Pediatr Dent 19:262-266, 1997.

30. Piwowarczyk A, Lauer HC, Sorensen JA. Microleakage of various cementing agents for full cast crowns. Dent Mater 21:445-453, 2005.

31. Myers DR, Bell RA, Barenie JT. The effect of cement type and tooth preparation on the retention of stainless steel crowns. J Pedod 5:275-280, 1981.

32. Garcia-Godoy F, Landry JK. Evaluation of stainless steel crowns luted with a glass ionomer cement. J Pedod 13:328-330, 1989.

33. Seraj B, Shahrabi M, Motahari P, Ahmadi R, Ghadimi S, Mosharafian S et al. Microleakage of stainless steel crowns placed on intact and extensively destroyed primary first molars: an in vitro study. Pediatr Dent 33:525-528, 2011.

34. Jacobs MS, Windeler AS. An investigation of dental luting cement solubility as a function of the marginal gap. J Prosthet Dent 65:436-442, 1991.

35. Zinelis S, Lambrinaki T, Kavvadia K, Papagiannoulis L. Morphological and compositional alterations of in vivo aged prefabricated pediatric metal crowns (PMCs). Dent Mater 24:216-220, 2008.

36. Pashley DH. Clinical considerations of microleakage. J Endod 16:70-77, 1990.

37. Zulfikaroglu BT, Atac AS, Cehreli ZC. Clinical performance of Class II adhesive restorations in pulpectomized primary molars: 12-month results. J Dent Child (Chic) 75:33-43, 2008.