Dyract versus Tytin Class II Restorations in Primary Molars: 36 Months EvaluationMarks L.A.M.a,b · Weerheijm K.L.a · van Amerongen W.E.a · Groen H.J.a · Martens L.C.b
Departments of aCariology, Endodontology, Pedodontology, Academic Centre for Dentistry Amsterdam (ACTA), Amsterdam, The Netherlands; bPaediatric Dentistry and Special Care, Dental School, University of Gent, Belgium
Do you have an account?
- Rent for 48h to view
- Buy Cloud Access for unlimited viewing via different devices
- Synchronizing in the ReadCube Cloud
- Printing and saving restrictions apply
Rental: USD 8.50
Cloud: USD 20.00
Due to the changed treatment approach of proximal caries and the amalgam controversy, clinicians are in search for new materials. The aim of the present study was to compare amalgam with an adhesive material in deciduous molars in a clinical, split–mouth design study. At baseline 30 polyacid modified composite (Dyract®) and 30 amalgam (Tytin®) restorations were placed in primary molars, of which 24 and 17 could be evaluated after 24 and 36 months, respectively. Modified USPHS criteria were used for clinical evaluation every 6 months. Annual bite–wing radiographs were taken for evaluation of recurrent caries and cervical gap formation. In the present study, for Dyract as well as for Tytin restorations, low rates of recurrent caries were found, while Dyract restorations showed a better marginal adaptation and surface texture compared to Tytin restorations. In the Dyract group more radiolucencies were found at baseline. In both groups no patient complaint or pain was reported related to the radiolucencies. After 3 years the colour of Dyract was not comparable to the original. For Dyract no excessive wear was noticed compared to enamel. During the study one Dyract (recurrent caries: 18 months) and two Tytin (pulpal aetiology: 6 months, recurrent caries: 36 months) restorations had to be replaced. Even though the restorations were placed in caries risk children, at the 36 months’ evaluation of this clinical study, the results indicate that Dyract can be an alternative for Tytin in the primary dentition.
- Andersson–Weckert IE, Folkesson UH, van Dijken JW: Durability of a polyacid–modified composite resin (compomer) in primary molars: A multicenter study. Acta Odontol Scand 1997; 55:255–260.
de Araujo FB, Garcia–Godoy F, Cuty JA, Conceicao EN: Fluoride release from fluoride containing materials. Oper Dent 1996;51:185– 190.
Arends J, Dijckman AG: Review of fluoride release and secondary caries reduction by fluorating composites. Adv Dent Res 1995;9:367– 376.
- Bayne SC, Taylor DF, Heymann HO: Protection hypothesis for composite wear. Dent Mater 1992;8:305–309.
- ten Cate JM, Damen JJ, Buijs MJ: Inhibition of dentin demineralization by fluoride in vitro. Caries Res 1998;32:141–147.
Cvar JF, Ryge G: Criteria for the Clinical Evaluation of Dental Restorative Materials. USPHS Publication. San Francisco, National Institute of Public Health, 1971, pp 190–244.
- DeMoor RJG, Verbeeck RMH, Demaeyer EAP: Fluoride release profiles of restorative glass ionomer formulations. Dent Mater 1996;12: 88–95.
- van Dijken JWV: 3 year clinical evaluation of a compomer, a resin modified glass–ionomer and a resin composite in class III restorations. Am J Dent 1996;9:195–198.
- Forsten L: Clinical experience with glass ionomer for proximal fillings. Acta Odontol Scand 1993;51:195–200.
- Forsten L: Fluoride release and uptake by galss–ionomers and related materials and its clinical effect. Biomaterials 1998;19:503–508.
- Forsten L, Karjalainen S: Glass ionomers in proximal cavities of primary molars. Scand J Dent Res 1990;98:70–73.
- Friedl KH, Schmalz G, Killer KA, Shams M: Resin–modified glass ionomers: Fluoride release and influence on the Streptococcus mutans growth. Eur J Oral Sci 1997;105:81–85.
- Gladys S, van Meerbeeck B, Braem M, Lambrechts P, van Herle G: Comparative physicomechanical characterisation of new hybrid restorative materials with conventional glass–ionomer and resin composite restorative materials. J Dent Res 1997;76:883–894.
- Hamilton JC, Moffa JP, Ellison JA, Jenkins WA: Marginal fracture not a predictor of longevity for two dental amalgam alloys. J Prosthet Dent 1983;50:200–202.
Hardison JD, Rafferty–Parker D, Mitchell RJ, Bean LR: Radiolucent halos associated with radiopaque composite resin restorations. JADA 1989;118:595–597.
Hse KM, Wei SH: Clinical evaluation of compomer in primary teeth: 1–year results. JADA 1997;128:1088–1096.
- Hume WR, Mount GJ: In vitro studies on the potential for pulpal cytotoxity of glass–ionomer cements. J Dent Res 1988;67:915–918.
Kalsbeek H, Eijkman MAJ, Verrips GH: TNO rapport Tandheelkundige hulp jeugdige verzekerden ziekenfondsverzekering. PG–TNO, 1994.
Kilpatrick NM: Durability of restorations in primary molars. J Dent 1993;21:211–214.
- Kreulen CM, Van Amerongen WE, Akerboom HBM, Borgmeijer PJ: Two years result with box–only resin composite restorations. J Dent Child 1995;62:395–400.
- Lutz F, Phillips RW, Poulet IF, Seedcase J: In vivo and in vitro wear of potential posterior composite. J Dent Res 1984;63:914–920.
- McCabe JF: Resin modified glass–ionomers. Biomaterials 1998;19:521–527.
- McLean J, Nicholson J, Wilson AD: Proposed nomenclature for glass–ionomer dental cements and related materials. Quint Int 1994; 25:587–589.
Marks LAM, Verbeeck RH: Water sensitivity of the fluoride release of modified glass ionomers (IADR abstr 2431). J Dent Res 1998;77:939.
Mertz–Fairhurst EJ, Schusters GS, Fairhurst CW: Arresting caries by sealants: Results of a clinical study. JADA 1986;112:194–198.
- Mjör IA: The reasons for replacement and the age of failed restorations in general dental practice. Acta Odontol Scand 1997;55:58–63.
- Mount GJ: Minimal treatment of carious lesion. Int Dent J 1991;41:55–59.
- Mount GJ: Clinical performances in glass–ionomers. Biomaterials 1998;19:573–579.
- Ostlund J, Moller K, Koch G: Amalgam, composite resin and glass ionomer cement in class II restorations in primary molars: A three year evaluation result. Swed Dent J 1992;16:81–86.
- Peters TCRB, Roeters JJM, Frankenmolen FWA: Clinical evaluation of Dyract in primary molars: 1–year results. Am J Dent 1996;9:83–88.
- Retief DH, Bradley EL, Denton JC, Swatter P: Enamel and cementum fluoride uptake from a glass ionomer cement. Caries Res 1984;18: 250–257.
- Rudolphy MP, Gorter Y, van Loveren C, van Amerongen J: Validity of radiographs for diagnosis of secondary caries in teeth with class II amalgam restorations in vitro. Caries Res 1997;31:24–29.
Ryge G: Clinical criteria. Int Dent J 1980;30:369– 377.
Sasanaluckit P, Albustany KR, Doherty PJ, Williams DF: Biocompatibility of glass ionomer cements. Biomaterials 1993;14:906– 916.
- Verbeeck RMH, DeMaeyer EAP, Marks LAM, DeMoor RJG, DeWitte AMJC, Trimpeneers LM: Fluoride release process of (resin–modified) glass–ionomer cements versus (polyacid–modified) composite resins. Biomaterials 1998;19: 509–519.
- Welbury RR, Walls AWG, Murray JJ: The management of caries in deciduous molars: 5–year results of a clinical trial comparing a glasspolyalkenoate (ionomer) cement restoration with an amalgam restoration. Br Dent J 1991;170:177–181.
Wilson AD, McLean JW: Glass ionomer cements. Quint Int 1988 (special ed).
Article / Publication Details
Copyright / Drug Dosage / DisclaimerCopyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.