occlusion, proximal contact and marginal integrity could studies, there were no significant differences in clinical
not be estimated as no events were recorded at the 6-month performance between the materials tested.
evaluation. The Donly 1999 split-mouth study compared No studies were found that compared restorations versus
a resin-modified glass ionomer (Vitremer) with amalgam extractions or no treatment as an intervention in children
over a 36-month period. Forty pairs of Class II restorations with childhood caries.
were placed in 40 patients (21 males; 19 females; mean age
8 years +/- 1.17; age range 6 to 9 years). Although the study Authors’ conclusions
period was 3 years (36 months), only the 6- and 12-month It was disappointing that only three trials that compared
results are reported due to the loss to follow up of patients three different types of materials were suitable for inclu-
being greater than 30% for the 24- and 36-month data. sion into this review. There were no significant differences
Marks 1999a recruited 30 patients (age range 4 to 9 years; found in all three trials for all of the outcomes assessed.
mean age 6.7 years, standard deviation 2.3) with one pair Well designed, randomised controlled trials comparing
of primary molars that required a Class II restoration. The the different types of filling materials for similar outcomes
materials tested were Dyract (compomer) and Tytin (amal- are urgently needed in dentistry. There was insufficient
gam). Loss to follow up at 24 and 36 months was 20% and evidence from the three included trials to make any rec-
43% respectively. This meant that only the 24-month data ommendations about which filling material to use.
were useable. For all of the outcomes compared in all three
extraction of primary (baby) teeth for unerupted palatally displaced permanent canine teeth
Nicola Parkin1, Philip E Benson1, Anwar Shah2, Bikram Thind3, Zoe Marshman1, Gillian Glenroy4, Fiona Dyer5
Department of Oral Health and Development, School of Clinical Dentistry, Sheffield, UK. 2Falchion Orthodontics, Darlington, UK.
Department of Orthodontics, Argyll House, Aberdeen, UK. 4Foxbar Clinic, Paisley, UK. 5Department of Orthodontics, Charles Clifford
Dental Hospital, Sheffield, UK
Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2009, Issue 2. Art. No.: CD004621. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004621.pub2. Copyright © 2009
The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
abstract Data collection and analysis
Background Seven review authors independently, in duplicate,
The permanent canine tooth in the upper (maxillary) examined the studies found in the search. The primary