Pediatric Restorative Dentistry

Board takeaway

• Control the disease: assess progression risk, provide prevention, and maintain active surveillance. Restorations have limited lifespans and do not cure caries.
• Match the treatment: lesion extent, pulp status, isolation, cooperation, caries risk, remaining tooth structure, and time to exfoliation all matter.
• Preserve vitality: especially in immature permanent teeth needing continued root development. Deep caries does not automatically require complete excavation.

Make the treatment choice in order

1. Establish pulp status and restorability. Deep caries, pain history, remaining structure, and the tooth's developmental stage determine whether a restoration alone is appropriate.
2. Choose the lesion strategy. Prevention/surveillance, infiltration, selective excavation, interim care, and full coverage solve different problems.
3. Choose a material that can succeed in this mouth. Match lesion size and surfaces, moisture control, cooperation, caries risk, and expected service time.
4. Plan maintenance. Explain likely failure modes and continue disease control and surveillance.

This 2022 restorative document's deep-caries recommendations concern normal pulp or reversible pulpitis. Use the dedicated primary vital-pulp guideline, permanent vital-pulp guideline, and pulp-therapy best practice for diagnosis-specific pulp treatment and newer eligibility distinctions.

When to restore and what to monitor

• Decision criteria include visible enamel cavitation, enamel shadowing, or radiographic lesion progression. Some lesions remain stable and do not require restoration.
• Benefits: restore structure/function, remove plaque-retentive defects, limit progression toward the pulp, and prevent tooth movement from structural loss.
• Risks: pulp exposure, later pulpal disease, fracture, recurrent caries, restoration failure, and damage to adjacent teeth. Consider the primary tooth's remaining service time.
• Continue surveillance of lesion progression and preventive care after treatment. This best practice supplies no universal recall interval.
• Molar-incisor hypomineralization: permanent first molars, sometimes incisors, may have sensitivity, altered bonding, and structural breakdown. Decisions depend on defect severity/quality, breakdown risk, symptoms, preferences, and behavior.

Deep caries: preserve the pulp

• Consider incomplete removal in primary or permanent teeth with normal pulp or reversible pulpitis when complete removal is likely to expose the pulp. Multiple trials/reviews support fewer exposures and fewer pulpal symptoms.
• In permanent teeth, one-step excavation better preserves vitality than stepwise excavation; a cited five-year trial reported 80% versus 56% success. Reopening is not routinely required by this evidence.
• Permanent restoration failure was not higher after incomplete excavation in systematic reviews. A separate primary-tooth composite trial favored total removal for restoration survival: distinguish restoration survival from pulp preservation.
• Trials support arrest without excavation when an effective restoration seal persists; do not generalize this to every lesion or pulp diagnosis.

Decision map: deep caries and pulp preservation

Loading diagram…

This restorative source supports incomplete removal for normal pulp/reversible pulpitis when complete removal risks exposure. Newer pulp guidance governs other diagnoses and treatment after exposure. The coronal seal and disease control remain essential.

Resin infiltration

• Low-viscosity resin penetrates porous enamel lesions and forms a barrier to acid diffusion.
• Adjunct to prevention for small, noncavitated proximal lesions in either dentition; also may improve white-spot appearance.
• Trials support reduced radiographic progression, including primary molar results over 24 months. The cited ADA recommendation is conditional, with low to very low certainty; long-term evidence remains limited.

Material selection at a glance

The source's evidence tables distinguish strong trial/review support from weaker clinical evidence and expert opinion. A favorable result in one cavity class does not establish long-term suitability for every use.

Amalgam: efficacy and counseling

• Contains approximately 50% mercury. Pediatric trials cited found no nervous-system or renal effects, but data in children under six and pregnancy-related populations were limited.
• Known mercury sensitivity is a contraindication. The source summarizes FDA advice to avoid amalgam in higher-risk groups, including children under six, pregnant/planning-pregnancy or nursing patients, and people with pre-existing neurological disease; consider alternatives.
• The source also records ADA support for amalgam's safety and durability. Explain material options and benefits/risks; sound existing amalgams should not be removed unless medically necessary.
• Comparative longevity is mixed: many studies find similar durability to alternatives; others favor amalgam. Short follow-up and trial bias limit certainty.

Composite: isolation and exposure precautions

• Technique sensitive; questionable isolation/cooperation, poor hygiene, many active lesions, or large multisurface primary restorations may make it a poor choice.
• Rubber dam use improves longevity. Enamel/dentin bonding reduces marginal staining and detectable margins; recurrent caries is a major failure cause.
• Composite types have broadly similar clinical performance despite differences in filler-related strength, polishability, and shrinkage.
• Bisphenol A (BPA) derivatives can be transiently released. The source supports continued resin use with exposure precautions: rubber dam, surface cleaning with pumice/cotton roll, and rinsing. It provides no established safety/exposure threshold.

GIC, RMGIC, ITR, and ART

• GIC chemically bonds to enamel/dentin, releases and recharges fluoride, and is less moisture sensitive than resin. Uses include restorations, liners/bases, repair, caries control, and luting crowns/appliances.
• RMGIC improves handling, setting, strength, and wear relative to conventional GIC. Condition dentin; avoid cavosurface beveling, which a cited trial associated with marginal failure.
• Neither conventional GIC nor RMGIC has sufficient evidence as a long-term permanent-tooth restorative material.
• Interim therapeutic restoration (ITR): interim care when conventional treatment is infeasible or postponed—very young/uncooperative patients, special health care needs, or multiple open lesions before definitive treatment.
• Atraumatic restorative treatment (ART): similar approach intended as definitive care where access to traditional dentistry is limited. Single-surface survival is better supported; multisurface primary results conflict and permanent multisurface research is needed.
• The recommendation permits high-viscosity GIC ITR/ART as single-surface temporary restorations in either dentition; preserve the distinction between that recommendation and ART's broader definitive-care purpose.
• Silver diamine fluoride (SDF) pretreatment evidence is inconsistent: one review found no adverse GIC-dentin bonding effect, another was inconclusive. Do not promise improved bonding or proven added benefit.

Compomers and bioactive materials

• Compomers combine resin characteristics with fluoride release; primary Class I/II performance supports their use as alternatives. Fluoride release does not establish superior caries prevention versus GIC/RMGIC.
• Colored compomers differ in polymerization-related pulp temperature effects; the source does not establish a clinical injury threshold.
• Bioactive materials exchange ions and may support remineralization; products include restorative, adhesive, cement, and pulp-capping materials. Surface treatment can differ by product.
• The source permits bioactive materials for remineralization and pulp capping, while calling for basic-property, comparative, and long-term research. Avoid claims of class-wide superiority.

Metal crowns and the Hall technique

• SSC/PMC indications: extensive caries or cervical decalcification, developmental defects, proximal lesions beyond line angles, likely intracoronal failure/bruxism, pulpotomy/pulpectomy, space-maintainer abutment, and intermediate fracture restoration.
• Especially indicated for high-risk children with large/multisurface cavitated or noncavitated primary molar lesions, particularly when advanced behavior guidance or general anesthesia is needed.
• Longevity advantages largely come from retrospective/nonrandomized evidence. Pulp-treated teeth generally have best reported outcomes with SSCs; short trials sometimes found similar survival to intracoronal restorations, with more composite maintenance.
• Permanent crowns may serve as semipermanent restorations for severe enamel defects or gross caries. Much indication evidence is expert opinion; developmental stage and practical circumstances matter.
• Crown loss/perforation are failure modes. Appropriate contour, cement removal, and oral hygiene instruction address gingival inflammation risks.
• Hall technique: seals a carious primary molar with an SSC without local anesthesia, excavation, or preparation. May be considered when conventional SSC placement is infeasible because of cooperation/access barriers.
• Separators and biting the crown into place can still cause discomfort.
  • Trials favor Hall over standard fillings, but comparison with conventionally placed crowns requires more long-term/radiographic evidence.
  • This document does not provide a complete Hall eligibility protocol.

Posterior and anterior esthetic options

• Posterior zirconia: may replace an otherwise indicated SSC for esthetics; evidence is limited. Requires more circumferential reduction and at least 2 mm abutment height for retention. SSC retention is comparatively better; zirconia gingival health comparatively better.
• Anterior Class III/V: composite when saliva/blood isolation is adequate; RMGIC is an expert-opinion option when isolation is difficult. Class III dovetails can enlarge bonding area.
• Full anterior coverage indications: multisurface caries, incisal involvement, extensive cervical decalcification, pulp therapy, very poor hygiene despite minor caries, or behavior preventing moisture control.
• Strip crowns: esthetic but need adequate bonding structure and isolation; blood affects bonding/color. Retrospective studies reported about 80% retention at three years.
• Preveneered SSC: good crown retention but frequent facing loss; color/surface changes remain concerns. Metal-side crimping did not impair fracture resistance in cited evidence.
• Preformed/open-faced SSC remain options, with sparse evidence.
• Anterior zirconia: strong and esthetic, but cannot be adjusted; requires greater reduction than SSC and passive seating. Source describes 1.5–2 mm reduction with a feather margin. Anterior full-coverage choices largely rest on expert opinion.

Common board traps

Answer aloud

A vital permanent molar has deep caries likely to expose the pulp. What is your approach?

For a restorable tooth with normal pulp or reversible pulpitis, consider one-step selective excavation and a durable seal to preserve vitality.

• Confirm pulp diagnosis and restorability before choosing the procedure.

• Selective removal reduces exposure risk; routine reopening is not required by the cited evidence.

• Necrosis or infection requires a different pulp-treatment pathway.

• The retained dentin requires an effective seal, and treatment must include prevention and clinical/radiographic surveillance rather than equate placing a restoration with curing the disease.

A high-risk preschooler needs extensive primary molar treatment under general anesthesia. Which restoration?

For large or multisurface primary molar lesions in a high-risk child treated under general anesthesia, a stainless steel crown may provide durable coverage and reduce later maintenance or retreatment.

• Also assess pulp-treatment needs, remaining tooth structure, and hygiene.
• The choice should fit the tooth and patient, with an explanation of the evidence and its limitations.

A parent wants esthetic coverage for badly carious incisors. What determines your choice?

Evaluate the need for full coverage, remaining bonding structure, isolation, behavior, and pulp needs. Compare the options:

• Strip crowns: need adequate bonding structure and isolation.
• Preveneered crowns: the facing may be lost.
• Zirconia crowns: require more reduction and passive seating; they cannot be crimped or adjusted to fit like a metal crown.

Weigh the esthetic preference against these technical limits, treatment burden, and pulp/restorability findings. An esthetic request does not make a poorly isolatable tooth suitable for a bonded strip crown.

What distinguishes ITR from ART, and when does glass ionomer fit?

ITR is interim care when conventional treatment is infeasible or postponed; ART can be definitive care where traditional dentistry is inaccessible.

• High-viscosity glass ionomer has better support for single-surface than multisurface ART restorations.
• Conventional glass ionomer evidence is unfavorable for primary Class II restorations; resin-modified glass ionomer may fit selected small/moderate primary Class II lesions.
• Neither has sufficient support here for long-term permanent-tooth restoration.