Home  About us  Contact
 

Steel Crown (steel + crown)

Distribution by Scientific Domains
Medical Sciences100%

Kinds of Steel Crown

  • stainless steel crown
    		•

    Selected Abstracts

    Stainless steel crown versus modified open-sandwich restorations for primary molars: a 2-year randomized clinical trial

    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PAEDIATRIC DENTISTRY, Issue 5 2008
    MOMEN ATIEH
    Objective., The aim of this study was to investigate the clinical performance and survival of stainless steel crown (SSC) restoration and modified open-sandwich technique using resin-modified glass ionomer cement. Design., Randomized clinical trial. Setting., General dental practice. Materials and methods., A total of 87 children aged 4,7 years at baseline with one or more primary molars that have undergone pulp therapy were randomly assigned to receive either SSC or modified open-sandwich restoration. One hundred and sixty restorations were placed and evaluated after 6, 12, 18, and 24 months using the Ryge criteria. Results., Comparable survival rates were observed for both SSC and modified open-sandwich restoration. With only four SSCs and six modified open-sandwich restorations failing over 24 months, the survival rates were high for both materials (2-year survival rate: 95.0% for SSCs and 92.5% for modified open-sandwich restorations). Significantly better gingival health (P < 0.05) was observed for the modified open-sandwich restorations compared with SSCs, as only one modified open-sandwich restoration was rated Charlie compared to 13 SSCs. No significant differences were observed between the two materials for marginal integrity, proximal contact, occlusion, or recurrent caries. Conclusion., The 2-year results indicated that the modified open-sandwich restoration is an appropriate alternative to SSC in extensive restorations, particularly where aesthetic considerations are important. [source]

    Clinicians choices of restorative materials for children

    AUSTRALIAN DENTAL JOURNAL, Issue 4 2003
    LA Tran
    Abstract Background: Recently, there has been an expansion in the range of tooth-coloured restorative materials available. In 1999, the National Health and Medical Research Council recommended clinicians use alternatives to amalgam in children ,where appropriate'. Methods: A three-part 29-item questionnaire was developed, tested in a focus group, and distributed to members of the Australasian Academy of Paediatric Dentistry (AA; paediatric dentists and paediatric dentistry postgraduate students; n=55), and the Australian and New Zealand Society of Paediatric Dentistry, Victorian Branch (SPD; general dentists and dental therapists; n=50). Participant information, material choices, and six hypothetical clinical scenarios were addressed. Results: The overall response rate was 74 per cent. For both groups, the first ranked factor influencing choice of restorative material for vital primary teeth was child age, and caries experience for vital first permanent molars. For moderate-sized Class I and II restorations in primary molars, a tooth-coloured material was chosen by 92 and 84 per cent respondents respectively. For restoring two separate proximal lesions in a primary molar, 65 per cent chose a tooth-coloured material followed by a stainless steel crown (27 per cent; all AA members), then amalgam (8 per cent). The SPD respondents were significantly more likely to choose glass ionomer cement for Class I and II restorations and for restoring two proximal lesions (all p=0.000) in primary molars than AA respondents, who were more likely to choose composite resins/compomers or amalgam/stainless steel crowns for these restorations. Younger respondents (21,40 years) were significantly more likely to choose composite resins/compomers or amalgam/stainless steel crowns (p=0.048) than older respondents (41,65 years), who were likely to choose glass ionomer cement. Conclusions: For Class I and II restorations in primary molars, glass ionomer cement was the material chosen most frequently (SPD respondents); preference for amalgam or stainless steel crowns was low (both SPD and AA groups). The wide range of materials chosen for the hypothetical clinical scenarios suggests the need for guidelines on selection of restorative materials, and the need for longitudinal studies to follow actual clinical outcomes of the materials chosen. [source]

    Compomers in restorative therapy of children: a literature review

    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PAEDIATRIC DENTISTRY, Issue 1 2007
    NORBERT KRÄMER
    Objective., The restoration of carious primary teeth plays an underestimated role in paediatric dentistry. This is astonishing for many reasons, not least because many new materials have been introduced in recent years. New or modified techniques and materials, with better aesthetics and flexural properties, allow minimally invasive treatment. A transfer of techniques between different dentitions, however, may be problematic because of both micromorphological differences and compliance. Therefore, this paper deals with options for restoring primary teeth and the early stages of the mixed dentition using polyacid-modified composites, the so-called compomers. Methods., Medline and Embase were scanned from 1990 through 2006. Furthermore, a hand-search of nonlisted but peer-reviewed papers was performed. The search items were compomer*, dent*, primary* and deciduous*, which identified 109 relevant publications. Conclusions., Based on high clinical success rates, compomers are now an effective alternative to other materials for restorative therapy in the anterior and posterior primary teeth. A minimum amount of compliance is still mandatory in order to allow for a few minutes of adhesive pretreatment and layering without contamination. If this is not the case, compomers make no sense. Stainless steel crowns are still the most effective from of restoration for severely decayed primary molars. [source]

    Paediatric dentistry experience of the first cohort of students to graduate from Dublin Dental School and Hospital under the new curriculum

    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PAEDIATRIC DENTISTRY, Issue 6 2004
    D. FINUCANE
    Summary. Aim., To assess undergraduate clinical experience in Paediatric Dentistry in students graduating under a new curriculum. Methods., An audit using logbooks completed by 34 students for all patients for whom they had provided treatment in the university paediatric dentistry clinic. Results., A total of 177 child patients had received treatment from the students, age range 2,8 years. Students had performed an average of 13 restorative techniques. Sixty-eight percent had provided stainless steel crowns and 71% at least one pulpotomy for a primary tooth. All students had provided fissure sealants. Eighteen had carried out extractions and 8 had provided treatment for fractured incisors on this clinic. Conclusions., The cohort of students included had a wide range of experience of paediatric dentistry which compared favourably with accepted guidelines. A relative lack of experience of dental extractions currently remains a problem. [source]

    Clinicians choices of restorative materials for children

    AUSTRALIAN DENTAL JOURNAL, Issue 4 2003
    LA Tran
    Abstract Background: Recently, there has been an expansion in the range of tooth-coloured restorative materials available. In 1999, the National Health and Medical Research Council recommended clinicians use alternatives to amalgam in children ,where appropriate'. Methods: A three-part 29-item questionnaire was developed, tested in a focus group, and distributed to members of the Australasian Academy of Paediatric Dentistry (AA; paediatric dentists and paediatric dentistry postgraduate students; n=55), and the Australian and New Zealand Society of Paediatric Dentistry, Victorian Branch (SPD; general dentists and dental therapists; n=50). Participant information, material choices, and six hypothetical clinical scenarios were addressed. Results: The overall response rate was 74 per cent. For both groups, the first ranked factor influencing choice of restorative material for vital primary teeth was child age, and caries experience for vital first permanent molars. For moderate-sized Class I and II restorations in primary molars, a tooth-coloured material was chosen by 92 and 84 per cent respondents respectively. For restoring two separate proximal lesions in a primary molar, 65 per cent chose a tooth-coloured material followed by a stainless steel crown (27 per cent; all AA members), then amalgam (8 per cent). The SPD respondents were significantly more likely to choose glass ionomer cement for Class I and II restorations and for restoring two proximal lesions (all p=0.000) in primary molars than AA respondents, who were more likely to choose composite resins/compomers or amalgam/stainless steel crowns for these restorations. Younger respondents (21,40 years) were significantly more likely to choose composite resins/compomers or amalgam/stainless steel crowns (p=0.048) than older respondents (41,65 years), who were likely to choose glass ionomer cement. Conclusions: For Class I and II restorations in primary molars, glass ionomer cement was the material chosen most frequently (SPD respondents); preference for amalgam or stainless steel crowns was low (both SPD and AA groups). The wide range of materials chosen for the hypothetical clinical scenarios suggests the need for guidelines on selection of restorative materials, and the need for longitudinal studies to follow actual clinical outcomes of the materials chosen. [source]