Class I restorations and restorations placed using rubber dam presented better AFR .
An elevated number of failures were observed due to recurrent caries , highlighting the need for professionals to work with a health-promoting approach .
BACKGROUND Several restorative material s with specific indications are used for filling cavities in primary teeth .
AIM To systematic ally review the literature in order to investigate the longevity of primary teeth restorations  and the reasons for failure .
Randomized controlled clinical trial of the 24-months survival of composite resin restorations after one-step incomplete and complete excavation on primary teeth.
OBJECTIVE This r and omized clinical trial aim ed to compare the 24-months survival of  composite restorations in primary molars after partial caries removal ( PCR ) and total caries removal ( TCR ) . METHODS Forty-eight children aged 3 - 8 years with at least one molar with a deep carious lesion were included ( PCR ; n=66 ; TCR ; n=54 ) . For PCR , excavation was stopped when dentine with a leathery consistency was achieved ; in the TCR group , total absence of carious tissue was confirmed using a blunt-tipped probe . Pulpotomy was performed in cases of pulp exposure . Success was assessed by modified USPHS criteria with Alpha and Bravo scores recorded as success . RESULTS Pulp exposure occurred in 1 and 15 of the teeth treated with PCR and TCR respectively ( p<0.01 ) . The restorations survival rate after 24 months was 66 % ( PCR ) and 86 % ( TCR ) ( p=0.03 ) . When teeth that received pulpotomy were analyzed separately , the survival rate was 92 % ( p=0.09 ) . PCR performed in occlusoproximal restorations demonstrated the lowest success rate ( p=0.002 ) . PCR increases 2.90 times the probability of having a restorative failure compared to TCR ( p=0.03 ) , after adjusting for cavity type . When pulp exposure and restoration failure were considered as the outcome , there was no significant difference between the two groups ( p=0.10 ) with success rates of 64 % ( PCR ) and 61 % ( TCR ) . CONCLUSION Collectively , deciduous teeth su bmi tted to PCR prevented pulp exposure and , consequently , more invasive treatments ; otherwise , PCR yielded lower longevity for composite restoration compared to TCR , suggesting that PCR restorations need to be followed over time , especially when multi-surface restorations are involved . CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE Composite restorations on carious remaining tissue require monitoring over time , especially those performed in more than one surface . Even if the restorations present shortcomings over the time , the majority of them are subject to repair , allowing more conservative approaches for teeth with deep caries lesions
Class I restorations and restorations placed using rubber dam presented better AFR .
An elevated number of failures were observed due to recurrent caries , highlighting the need for professionals to work with a health-promoting approach .
BACKGROUND Several restorative material s with specific indications are used for filling cavities in primary teeth .
AIM To systematic ally review the literature in order to investigate the longevity of primary teeth restorations  and the reasons for failure .