title: The influence of restorative material on the survival rate of restorations in primary molars. Stainless steel crown versus multisurface amalgam restorations: an 8-year longitudinal clinical study. The survival of resin modified glass ionomer and stainless steel crown restorations in primary molars, placed in a specialist paediatric dental practice Retentive strength of luting cements for stainless steel crowns: an in vitro study. The influence of luting cement on the probabilities of survival and modes of failure of cast full-coverage crowns. A comparative study of retentive strengths of zinc phosphate, polycarboxylate and glass ionomer cements with stainless steel crowns--an in vitro study. Conservative dental surgery: A split-mouth randomized clinical trial of single crowns retained with resin-modified glass-ionomer and zinc phosphate luting cements Comparison of two luting agents used for the retention of cast dowel and cores.
abstract: The survival rates of  restorations in primary molars were calculated after a retrospective examination of patients ' dental records from a study population of 1,065 children . A r and om sample of 128 records showing information for 604 dental restorations  was examined , coded , and analyzed by the life table method of survival analysis . The order of the survival rate of restorations from higher to lower success was preformed crowns , amalgam , composite resin , and glass ionomer restorations . A highly statistically significant difference ( P = 0.0001 ) was found among the survival success rates of different material restorations . For preformed crowns and amalgam restorations , the median survival time was more than 5 years . The 5-year survival estimate for preformed crowns was 68 % and for amalgam restorations was 60 % . For composite resin the median survival time was 32 months and the 4-year survival estimate was 40 % . For glass ionomer restorations , the median survival time was 12 months and the 4-year survival estimate was 5 % Two alternative methods of restoring primary teeth that had multisurface lesions were examined in a clinical longitudinal study . In a paired comparison , stainless steel crowns proved far superior to multisurface amalgam restorations with respect to both lifespan and replacement rate .  Stainless steel crowns are not only more acceptable to the patient and more cost effective , but also more acceptable to the dentist because of the comparatively simple procedures involved in restoring even severely affected primary molars Aims To prospect ively report on the survival of resin-modified glass ionomer cement ( RMGIC ) , photac-fil and pre-formed stainless steel crown ( SSC ) restorations in primary molar teeth placed over a seven-year period in a specialist paediatric dental practice under private contract of remuneration . Method All primary molar restorations placed by a specialist paediatric dentist over a seven-year period were review ed and the outcome results recorded . Data were recorded at review visits until June 30 , 2003 . Data recorded included Class I restorations , Class II restorations and SSC . The Class II cavities were either mesial or distal , with or without buccal/palatal extensions . If both proximal surfaces were decayed or if after cavity preparation the result ant outline form was significantly larger than the minimal classical form , RMGIC was not used ; an SSC was placed instead . Stainless steel crown preparation followed conventional guidelines . The crowns were cemented with reinforced zinc oxide and eugenol ( Kalzinol ) . The status was recorded as satisfactory restoration , tooth exfoliated , tooth extracted for orthodontic reasons with the date of extraction , or needing replacement . If replaced then the reason for replacement was also recorded . Results A total of 544 Class I RMGICs , 962 Class II RMGICs , and 1,010 SSCs  were placed . At the last review of each restoration , 98.3 % of Class I , 97.3 % of Class II RMGICs and 97.0 % of SSCs were either satisfactory or withdrawn intact . Conclusion Under the conditions of private specialist practice -based study SSCs continued to prove very successful for the restoration of larger cavities and for pulp-treated primary molar teeth . For the smaller cavities RMGIC were also very successful The present study evaluated and compared the retentive strength of three luting cements .  A total of forty five freshly extracted human primary molars were used in this study . The teeth were prepared to receive stainless steel crowns . They were then r and omly divided into three groups , of fifteen teeth each , so as to receive the three different luting cements : conventional glass ionomer resin modified glass ionomer and adhesive resin . The teeth were then stored in artificial saliva for twenty four hours . The retentive strength of the crowns was determined by using a specially design ed Instron Universal Testing Machine ( Model 1011 ) . The data was statistically analyzed using ANOVA to evaluate retentive strength for each cement and Tukey test for pair wise comparison . It was concluded that retentive strength of adhesive resin cement and resin modified glass ionomer cement was significantly higher than that of the conventional glass ionomer cement OBJECTIVES This study compares the probabilities of survival and modes of failure of cast full-coverage crowns bonded with five cements when subjected to tensile pull-off testing . METHODS Five groups of 25 sound human premolar teeth were prepared for full-coverage crowns , impressions recorded and customized castings fabricated in Ni-Cr-Mb bonding alloy . The cements tested were zinc phosphate , a h and -mixed and capsulated conventional glass-ionomer cement , a resin-modified glass-ionomer cement and a resin composite luting cement . The cemented crowns were stored in water at 37 degrees C for 24 h prior to application of a tensile pull-off force at a strain rate of 10 mm/min . The loads at failure were ranked and modelled by derived Weibull functions each describing the probability of a given specimen failing under a given load . Non-parametric statistical analysis was also applied to the results . RESULTS There were no significant differences between the loads at failure of zinc phosphate cement , the h and -mixed or the capsulated glass-ionomer cements . The resin-modified glass-ionomer cement and the resin composite cement  failed at significantly higher loads than the other three cements , but were not significantly different from each other . The Weibull modulus ranking for each cement from highest to lowest was resin composite = zinc phosphate , resin-modified glass-ionomer , h and -mixed conventional glass-ionomer and capsulated conventional glass-ionomer cement . SIGNIFICANCE Weibull analysis allows dentists to compare the probability of survival of a crown bonded with different cements at a chosen load giving an indication of cement reliability This study was conducted on 30 extracted human primary molars to assess the retentive strengths of zinc phosphate , polycarboxylate and glass ionomer cements . The teeth were embedded in resin blocks and were r and omly divided into 3 groups of 10 each . The occlusal surfaces of all teeth were reduced uniformly by 1.0 to 1.5 mm . All mesial , distal undercuts were removed and sharp angles rounded . This was followed by cementing pretrimmed and precontoured stainless steel crowns on each tooth with h and pressure and storing in artificial saliva at 37 degrees C for 24 hours . Retentive strength was tested using Instron Universal Testing Machine . The load was applied starting from a zero reading and gradually increased until the cemented stainless steel crowns showed signs of movement and then the readings were recorded . It was found that retentive strengths of zinc phosphate and glass ionomer cements were statistically better ( P < 0.05 ) when compared to the polycarboxylate cement . Negligible difference ( 0 . 59 kg/cm2 ) was however observed between zinc phosphate and glass ionomer cements The two cements were of comparable performance PURPOSE The first purpose of this study was to compare the retentive values of zinc phosphate and Panavia F resin cements when used for luting cast dowel and cores . The second purpose was to determine whether the use of a lubricant when making the resin pattern for a custom dowel and core would have an effect on the final retention of dowels cemented with either zinc phosphate or Panavia F cements . METHODS AND MATERIAL S Sixty-three caries-free extracted single-rooted human teeth were r and omly divided into three groups of 21 .  Root canal preparations were st and ardized for all 63 teeth . Clinical protocol s for fabricating and cementing dowel and core restorations were examined , comparing zinc phosphate and Panavia F resin cements . Direct dowel patterns were fabricated using the Para Post system and cast in a noble metal alloy . Group I dowel spaces were lubricated with GC lubricant prior to dowel pattern fabrication and cleaned with Cavidry solvent before cementing the cast dowel and core with zinc phosphate cement . Group II dowel spaces were rinsed with water only prior to dowel pattern fabrication . The dowels and cores in this group were cemented with Panavia F resin cement . Group III dowel spaces were lubricated with GC lubricant prior to dowel pattern fabrication ; the dowel spaces were cleaned with Cavidry solvent before the cast dowel and cores were cemented with Panavia F cement . The tensile force necessary to remove the cast dowel and cores was determined using a universal testing machine . Results were statistically analyzed using one-way ANOVA and Tukey 's HSD test . RESULTS The dowels and cores in Group I had significantly higher retentive values than either of the two Panavia F groups ( p < or = 0.001 ) . No difference in retentive values ( p > 0.05 ) was found between dowels luted with either of the lubricating agents in the Panavia F groups . CONCLUSIONS Zinc phosphate cement had higher retentive values when cementing cast dowel and cores than Panavia F. The type of lubricant used for the resin dowel fabrication ( water or GC lubricant that was removed with a solvent ) had no effect on the retention of cast dowels cemented with Panavia
target: Conclusion : Within the limitations of this study , thein vitro literature seems to suggest that the use of self-adhesive resin cements shows higher retentive strength , followed by resin-modified glass-ionomer cement ( RM-GIC ) and conventional GIC .
  However , RM-GIC can be a preferred luting agent due to its clinical advantages over resin cements .
  Thus , it can be concluded that choice of cement will depend on individual patient needs and clinical situation
background: Background : Stainless steel crowns ( SSCs ) are unique coronal restorative material s used commonly in the management of primary teeth with extensive caries .
  Aim : The aim of this study was to perform a systematic review to evaluate the retentive strength of luting cements for SSCs .