Abstract

The choice of restorative materials can be critical decisions, especially when it comes to high-risk pediatric patients and young cariogenic where professional commitment lies in the maintenance of the temporary works to its natural exfoliation time. So that the indication should be closely linked to the patient's caries risk. The objective of this study was to determine the survival of different restorative materials used in the pediatric clinic. We carried out a retrospective observational study, convenience sampling, 60 pediatric patients were selected from a total of 369, whose ages ranged between 4 and 9 years old and who attended the Universidad de La Frontera teaching clinic during 2010, and met inclusion and exclusion criteria of this research. Criteria included patients with high risk for caries, endodontically treated molars restored with amalgam, glass ionomer composite restoration and pediatric steel crowns. The analysis used the Stata 8.0 statistical package, Fisher exact test and survival analysis tables. We studied 150 primary molars of 60 patients, with an average age of 6.8 years (SD±1.5 years). The average observation time was 10.4 months (SD±3.7 months). There was no statistically significant difference between different restorative materials compared, except between amalgam and glass ionomer those found at the limit of statistical significance (P=0.0510). Analysis of survival tables showed that the longevity of amalgam fillings and crowns was similar, while the restoration had lower survival rates than those made with glass ionomer.