The Journal of the American Dental Association
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


J Am Dent Assoc, Vol 131, No 3, 337-343.
© 2000 American Dental Association

This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by RANDALL, R. C.
Right arrow Articles by WILSON, N. H. F.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by RANDALL, R. C.
Right arrow Articles by WILSON, N. H. F.
Related Collections
Right arrow Pharmacology

CLINICAL PRACTICE

JADA Continuing Education

EFFICACY OF PREFORMED METAL CROWNS VS. AMALGAM RESTORATIONS

IN PRIMARY MOLARS: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW



ROS C. RANDALL, B.CH.D., M.PHIL., MATTHIAS M. A. VRIJHOEF, PH.D. and NAIRN H. F. WILSON, PH.D., M.SC., B.D.S., F.D.S., D.R.D.

Background. The authors evaluated the treatment efficacy of preformed metal crowns, or PMCs, vs. amalgam restorations in primary molars by means of a literature review and meta-analysis.

Types of Studies Reviewed. From a literature search, the authors selected clinical studies that evaluated treatment with PMCs vs. amalgam control restorations in primary molars and provided data against which treatment outcomes could be compared.

Results. Ten studies with durations ranging from 1.6 to 10 years fulfilled the selection criteria. Their failure rates, based on need for subsequent treatment or retention of the restoration at final evaluation, ranged from 1.9 to 30.3 percent for PMCs and 11.6 to 88.7 percent for amalgam restorations. Overall, PMCs demonstrated greater longevity and reduced retreatment need compared with amalgam control restorations. The odds ratio for all studies fell within the boundary favoring treatment with PMCs.

Clinical Implications. Analysis of the literature, though mainly retrospective studies, demonstrated evidence of a more favorable outcome for PMCs than for amalgam restorations in primary molars requiring multisurface restorations.




This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
Journal of the American Dental AssociationHome page
J. BADER and A. ISMAIL
Survey of systematic reviews in dentistry
J Am Dent Assoc, April 1, 2004; 135(4): 464 - 473.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Journal of the American Dental AssociationHome page
T. P. CROLL, Y. BAR-ZION, A. SEGURA, and K. J. DONLY
Clinical performance of resin-modified glass ionomer cement restorations in primary teeth: A retrospective evaluation
J Am Dent Assoc, August 1, 2001; 132(8): 1110 - 1116.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]




HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright©1995-2000 American Dental Association (ADA).
Reproduction or republication strictly prohibited without prior written permission of ADA.