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 .
The survival of resin modified glass ionomer and stainless steel crown restorations in primary molars, placed in a specialist paediatric dental practice
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of each restoration , 98.3 % of Class I , 97.3 % of Class II RMGICs and 97.0 % of SSCs were either satisfactory or withdrawn intact .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
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 .