Ministry of higher Education
& scientific research
University of Baghdad
College of Dentistry
Restored primary and permanent teeth for
patients attended the department of
pediatric dentistry / college of dentistry /
Baghdad University in two years ago
(a retrospective study)
A Project
Submitted to the College of Dentistry, University of
Baghdad, Department of Pedodontics and Preventive
dentistry in partial fulfillment of the requirement for
B.D.S.
By: Sarmad wadhah yousif
Supervised by
Assistant Prof. Zainab Jum’a Ja’far
B.D.S, M.Sc.
2017-2018
I
Dedication
To my supervisor DR. Zainab Jum‘a Ja‘far for her guidance and endless support
thought this project, without her valuable assistant this work would not have
been completed…
To all my friends especially Ahmed Wissam …
And to all those who supported me during the course of my study…
II
Acknowledgment
Deep thanks to Prof. Dr. Hussain F. Al- Huwaizi Dean of the College of
Dentistry-University of Baghdad for his support to accomplish this review.
I would like to thank Assist. Prof. Dr. Nada Jafer MH. Shaikh Radhi, Head of
the Department of Pedodontics and Preventive Dentistry for her Kindness and
help.
I am indeed internally thankful to my supervisor Dr. Zainab Jum’a Ja’far, for
her continuous guidance, generous advice, and without her encouragement and
wise supervision; the present dissertation wouldn't see the light of the day.
My great appreciation and thanks to all teaching staff in Department of
Preventive and Pedodontic Dentistry.
Finally, to all those whom I forgot to mention their names for their kind efforts
helping me to compose this study.
III
Abstract
Background: A dental restoration or dental filling is a treatment to restore the
function, integrity, and morphology of missing tooth structure resulting
from caries or external trauma (Gopikrishna, 2015).
Archivists should use their power—in determining what records will be
preserved for future generations and in interpreting this documentation for
researchers—for the benefit of all members of society (Kaplan, 2000).
Materials & methods: This is a retrospective study made to record the work of
pediatric department/ College of Dentistry/ Baghdad University in the
undergraduate clinic. The case sheets have been taken from the department
achieve for the studying years (2015-2016) and (2016-2017). After collection,
separation and organization of case sheets and numbering, then sorted by (age,
gender, the tooth involved, filling materials, and class of filling). Statistical
analysis was done by using IBM SPSS statistic version 19.
Results and conclusions: of total sample (1484) in 2016-2017 and (1513) in
2015-2016,the age group 6-8 in primary dentition and the age group 12-14 had
the highest percentage of filled teeth, and in general the boys had more filled
teeth in comparing to girls, the lower arch had more filled teeth than upper arch,
the left side highest percentage of filled teeth than the right side, and the most
filled primary tooth was lower primary second molar, while lower permanent
first molar was the most filled permanent tooth, amalgam filling material was
highly used in dental clinic, and according to Black classification; class I was
the most class among others classes.
IV
List of content Title
No. subject Page No.
Introduction 1
AIMS OF THE STUDY 2
Chapter One(Review of Literature) 3
1.1 Definitions 3
1.2 Objectives of restorative treatment 3
1.3 Modifications of restoration of primary teeth from that
of permanent teeth
4
1.4 Factors affecting the choice of restorative material
Restorative materials
5
1.4.1 Age 5
1.4.2 Caries risk 5
1.4.3 Cooperation of the child 6
1.4.4 Restorative implications of behavior management 6
1.5 Restorative Materials 7
1.5.1 Amalgam 7
1.5.2 Glass ionomer cements (GICs) 8
1.5.3 Resin-modified glass ionomer cements 10
1.5.4 Composite resins 11
1.5.5 Compomers (polyacid-modified composite resin) 13
1.6 studies related to restored teeth 15
1.6.1 according to the age 15
1.6.2 according to the gender 15
V
1.6.3 according to the jaw distribution 15
1.6.4 according to the side 15
1.6.5 according to the tooth type 15
Chapter Two(Materials and Methods) 17
Chapter three(The Result) 18
Chapter Four(Discussion) 30
(Conclusions) 32
References 33
List of figures Figure
No. Title Page No.
1.1 differences in anatomy of primary teeth and permanent
teeth 4
1.2 Occlusal and proximal surfaces of primary tooth 5
1.3 advantages and disadvantages of restorative materials
used in pediatric dentistry 14
2.1 collection and entering of the information from case
sheets. 17
List of tables
Table
No. Title Page No.
3.1 Distribution of the total sample by age and gender 18
3.2 filled primary teeth according to tooth type, gender,
jaw and side
19
3.3 filled primary teeth according to age group
20
3.4 filled primary teeth according to filling material 21
3.5 Black’s classification of filled primary teeth 22
3.6 filled permanent teeth according to tooth type, gender,
jaw and side
24
VI
3.7 filled permanent teeth according to age groups 26
3.8 filled permanent teeth according to filling material 27
3.9 Black’s classification of filled permanent teeth in 2016-
2017
29
3.10 Black’s classification of filled permanent teeth in 2015-
2016
30
List of abbreviation
symbol Abbreviation UA Upper primary central incisor
UB Upper primary lateral incisor
UC Upper primary canine
UD Upper primary first molar
UE Upper primary second molar
LA Lower primary central incisor
LB Lower primary lateral incisor
LC Lower primary canine
LD Lower primary first molar
LE Lower primary second molar
U1 Upper permanent central incisor
U2 Upper permanent lateral incisor
U3 Upper permanent canine
U4 Upper permanent first premolar
U5 Upper permanent second premolar
U6 Upper permanent first molar
U7 Upper permanent second molar
L1 Lower permanent central incisor
L2 Lower permanent lateral incisor
L3 Lower permanent canine
L4 Lower permanent first premolar
L5 Lower permanent second premolar
L6 Lower permanent first molar
L7 Lower permanent second molar
1
Introduction
Patients seek dental treatment for symptoms, such as pain, sensitivity, trauma,
decay, discoloration and for esthetic corrections. The management of most of
these problems is under the purview of conservative dentistry. Hence the
operative dentistry/ conservative dentistry forms the core any dental practice
(Gopikrishna, 2015).
Caries activity usually causes tooth decay or cavities and can even lead to the
loss of afflicted teeth, which is particularly harmful to children's growth and
development (Petersen et al, 2005).
In contemporary dental practice, there are various different currently available
therapeutic possibilities for a restoration of tooth, damaged by tooth diseases or
trauma of any kind (Alb et al, 2010).
During the last two decades, a revolutionary change of tooth preparation
principles, indications and types of restorative materials appeared in a dental
practice (Salerno & Diaspro 2015).
The most commonly used restorative materials for posterior restorations,
amalgam fillings and gold inlays, used in ‗80s, became suppressed to only 20%,
or less, of all contemporary posterior restorations (Burke et al 2001; Dietschi et
al 2001; Christensen 2005).
What we preserve in archives represents a complex array of social values. As
Elisabeth Kaplan argues in an essay on archives and the construction of identity,
―We are what we collect, we collect what we are.‖ By preserving some records
and not others, archivists affect society‘s collective understanding of its past,
including what will be forgotten (Kaplan, 2000).
2
AIMS OF THE STUDY
This study aimed to record and sort the work of the department of pedodontics /
college of Dentistry/ University of Baghdad at two studying years (2015-2016
and 2016-2017) concerning filled teeth, and to have a base line data for future
comparison of the achievements of the department about filled teeth for children
came to this department in the past two years according to:
1) Age groups
2) Gender
3) Arch distribution
4) The side of the arch
5) Tooth type
6) Filling material
7) Black‘s classification of the dental filling.
Chapter one
Review of Literature
3
Chapter One
Review of Literature
Restoration of teeth
1.1 Definitions
Restorative dentistry is the art and science of the diagnosis, treatment, and
prognosis of defects of teeth that do not require full coverage restorations for
correction. Such treatment should result in the restoration of proper tooth form,
function, and esthetics while maintaining the physiologic integrity of the teeth
in harmonious relationship with the adjacent hard and soft tissues, all of which
should enhance the general health and welfare of the patient (Gopikrishna,
2015).
Cavity preparation is defined as the mechanical alteration of a defective, injured
or diseased tooth in order to best receive a restorative material which will re-
establish a healthy state of the tooth including esthetic corrections where
indicated, along with normal form and function ( Arathi Rao, 2012).
Irreversible loss of tooth substance and surface continuity has occurred when
tooth mineral is lost to the extent that a cavity is formed and The operative
treatment of caries lesions is usually based on traditional techniques that involve
the complete removal of soft, demineralized dentin and aims at preventing the
caries process from further progression as well as restoring the tooth to its
original size and form and color (Koch & poulsen, 2017).
1.2 Objectives of restorative treatment
• Prevent pain and discomfort.
• Prevent local infection of jaws and germs of permanent teeth.
• Prevent general infection.
• Prevent negative attitudes and promote interest in keeping good oral health.
Maintain good masticatory function, aesthetics, and overall wellbeing.
4
• Prevent caries in permanent teeth by introducing them to a sound oral
environment.
• Protect and preserve the remaining pulp and tooth structure; thereby managing
and preventing symptoms and pain.
• Facilitate easy maintenance of good oral hygiene.
• Maintain arch length and space for the developing permanent dentition.
• Prevent malocclusions (Cameron and widmer, 2013; Koch &poulsen, 2017).
1.3 Modifications of restoration of primary teeth from that of
permanent teeth. There are significant differences in the anatomy of the primary dentition in
comparison with the permanent dentition (figure 1.1) that create some
challenges when it comes to restoration of carious lesions ( Arathi Rao, 2012;
Cameron and Widmer, 2013) .
Figure (1.1) differences in anatomy of primary teeth and permanent teeth.
5
Figure (1.2) the occlusal table of the deciduous molar is narrower compared to
the permanent molar (A), and the presence of cervical constriction apical to the
cervical ridge (B).
1.4 Factors affecting the choice of restorative material Restorative
materials
The choice of material to use in a given situation is not always simple and
should not be based merely on technical considerations. Factors other than
durability may be equally important in the choice of material, particularly in
children (Cameron and widmer, 2013).
1.4.1 Age
The age of a child will influence their ability to cooperate with procedures such
as rubber dam application and local anaesthesia. The age of the child will also
dictate for how long a restoration is required to remain satisfactory. A
restoration in a first primary molar in a 9-year-old child does not require the
same durability as a restoration in a second primary molar in a 4-year-old child
(Cameron and widmer, 2013; Tran and Messer, 2003).
1.4.2 Caries risk
Restorations in a child considered to be at high risk of caries may need to fulfil
different objectives from restorations in a low-risk child. Although the use of a
6
fluoride-releasing material has obvious preventive advantages, glass ionomer
cements (GICs) may not be the most appropriate choice in a mouth that is at
high risk of further acid attack. Stainless steel crowns may involve a significant
amount of tooth destruction, but this will be appropriate if it eliminates the need
to re-treat in the future. Alternatively, GICs have a useful role in initial caries
control in cases of rampant caries (Cameron and widmer, 2013; Tran and
Messer, 2003).
1.4.3 Cooperation of the child
Many young children have behaviour that is not conducive to perfect, textbook,
cavity preparation and restoration. In these cases, highly technique-sensitive
procedures are inappropriate. A more forgiving restoration that can tolerate
some moisture contamination, without detriment to its longevity, may be
suitable. The use of GICs in the management of caries in anterior primary teeth
may be an excellent method of slowing the carious process and temporarily
restoring aesthetics in a 2-year-old child, without recourse to general
anaesthesia. By the age of 3 or 4 years, the child may be able to cope with more
definitive treatment with composite resin and strip crowns (Cameron and
widmer, 2013; Tran and Messer, 2003).
1.4.4 Restorative implications of behaviour management
Unfortunately, not all children are able to cooperate with dental treatment under
local anaesthesia. This may be because of their age or due to physical or
intellectual disabilities necessitating the completion of treatment under sedation
or general anaesthesia. When treatment is provided this way, the highest
standard of dentistry possible should be provided to reduce future dental
treatment for these high-need children. Use of materials and techniques that are
known to have longevity, such as stainless steel crowns, are mandatory
(Cameron and widmer, 2013; Tran and Messer, 2003).
7
The choice of restorative material depends on each clinical case and it is a
responsibility of a dentist. There is no currently available materials that meet all
the requirements for the ideal material, and each possess its own advantages and
disadvantages. The dentist have to be familiar with materials‘ properties, the
good and bad ones, with indications and contraindications for each clinical
situation, and to be able to analyze all the present parameters in order to make a
final clinical choice which suites each case the best (Christensen, 2005; Albet
al, 2010).
1.5 Restorative Materials
There are a variety of restorative materials available to restore carious lesions in
the primary dentition. Given the large number of techniques and products
available on the market it is important for clinicians to understand the procedure
they are using and to be aware that all approaches are operator and technique
sensitive (Cameron and widmer, 2013).
1.5.1 Amalgam
Silver amalgam restorative material is obtained by the triturition of amalgam
alloy with mercury, Historically, due to its simplicity, dental amalgam was the
most popular restorative material. However today, as a result of concerns
surrounding its potential toxicity and unfavourable aesthetics, amalgam is rarely
used in the primary dentition. Indeed, in some parts of the world, it has been
banned in children altogether. Today, dental amalgam has been largely
superseded by alternative materials and techniques in the restoration of the
primary dentition (Fejerskov et al, 2008; Cameron and widmer, 2013; Dean et
al, 2016).
Properties of amalgam:
1. Compressive strength—Admixed is 430 Mpa after 7 days
2. Tensile strength—Admixed is 50 Mpa after 24 hours
8
3. Surface hardness—110 KHN
4. Working time—3-8 minutes
5. Setting time—5-10 minutes
6. Increased expansion is due to: increased mercury, short trituration, low
condensation pressure and water contamination
7. Creep is associated with: increased or decreased trituration, time lag between
trituration and condensation, increased mercury, less condensation force (Arathi
Rao, 2012).
Amalgam is still the material of choice for large occlusal restorations and Class
II restorations not extending beyond the line angles, which require durability
and strength, and where aesthetics is not a concern (Tran and Messer, 2003).
The use of dental amalgam to restore primary molars is common and supported
by evidence from clinical trials. Clinical studies, evaluating the durability of
dental amalgam in primary molars, have laid down the benchmarks against
which other restorations should be judged (Cameron and widmer, 2013).
● Amalgam may be useful in children who are at moderate caries risk or who
are not totally cooperative, i.e. when moisture control is a problem.
● There is limited indication for the use of amalgam in Class I cavities in
children as a high-viscosity GI, compomer or composite resin will provide a
comparably successful restoration while preserving the tooth tissue (Tran and
Messer, 2003; Cameron and widmer, 2013).
1.5.2 Glass ionomer cements (GICs)
Glass = formulation of glass powder
Ionomer = ionomeric acid with carboxyl group
A glass ionomer consists of a basic glass and an acidic water-soluble powder
that sets by an acid–base reaction between the two components. A principal
benefit of GIC is that it will adhere chemically to dental hard tissues. A number
of GICs are available on the market today, each having its advantages and
9
disadvantages, however indications for the use of GICs are limited and
inappropriate use is likely to lead to failure (Anusavice et al, 2012; Arathi Rao,
2012; Dean et al, 2016).
Classification of GICs:
Type I: Luting cement
Type II: Restorative cement
Type II 1: Esthetic restorative cement
Type II 2: Reinforced restorative cement
Type III: Lining or base cement (Anusavice et al, 2012; Arathi Rao, 2012; Dean
et al, 2016).
Properties of GICs:
Physical properties:
• Sets rapidly in the mouth.
• Initial compressive strength is low (24 hours)—150-200 Mpa but increases
with time. After one year it can reach to 400 Mpa.
• Tensile strength (24 hours)—6.6 Mpa
• Hardness—70 KHN
• Solubility—0.7%
• Bioactive and possesses chemical bonding with the tooth.
• Coefficient of thermal expansion is close to that of the tooth causing less
microleakage around the restoration (Anusavice et al, 2012; Arathi Rao, 2012).
Esthetics:
• Translucent material.
• Color is much more stable. Resistance to stain is dependent on a good surface
finish (Anusavice et al, 2012; Arathi Rao, 2012).
Adhesion:
• Permanently adheres to the untreated enamel and dentin chemically.
• Principle barrier to adhesion is water.
10
• Mechanism of adhesion—chelation of carboxyl group of the polyacids with
the calcium ions in the apatite of enamel and dentin forming strong ionic bonds.
This ionic bonds are later replaced by hydrogen bonds which increases the
strength as the material sets. Surface conditioning also improves adhesion
(Anusavice et al, 2012; Arathi Rao, 2012).
1.5.3 Resin-modified glass ionomer cements
Resin-modified glass ionomer cements were developed to overcome the
problems of moisture sensitivity and low initial mechanical strength. They
consist of a GIC along with a water-based resin system which allows
photopolymerization to occur before the acid–base reaction of the glass ionomer
is complete. This reaction then occurs within the light polymerized resin
framework. The resin increases the fracture strength and wear resistance of the
GIC. Resin modified GICs are manufactured as restorative and lining materials
for use in both primary and permanent teeth (Fejerskov et al, 2008; Arathi Rao,
2012; Cameron and widmer, 2013).
Properties of Resin-modified glass ionomer cements:
• The difference is due to presence of polymerizable resins and less amount of
water and carboxylic acid in liquid.
• Tensile strength is higher than that of conventional GIC
• Greater amount of plastic deformation
• Bonding similar to conventional glass ionomer cement
• Higher bond strength compared to composite resin
• Greater degree of shrinkage—due to polymerization, lower water and
carboxylic acid content.
• Reduced water sensitivity
• Transient temperature increase during polymerization (Anusavice et al, 2012;
Arathi Rao, 2012).
11
GICs, resin-modified GICs indications:
These materials have an increasingly important role in the management of
carious lesions in primary molars because of their adhesive and fluoride-
leaching properties.
● Because of their lack of strength GICs should not be used in large
restorations that are to be subject to significant occlusal load in teeth that need
to be retained for more than 3 years.
● Small occlusal and interproximal cavities.
●Where possible, use the stronger, high-viscosity GIC and avoid using resin-
modified GICs for posterior restorations, as wear resistance is better (Berg &
Slayton, 2009; Cameron and widmer, 2013).
1.5.4 Composite resins
Resin-based composites (along with photopolymerization) have revolutionized
clinical dentistry. In the primary dentition, composite resins are being
increasingly used in combination with GICs in a ‗sandwich‘-style aesthetic
restoration. Placement of these materials is highly technique-sensitive, as there
is no doubt that patient compliance and adequate moisture isolation can prove
difficult in the younger, more challenging child. There is little evidence to
support this approach and yet, the demand for aesthetic restorations makes this
an attractive option (Cameron and widmer, 2013).
Properties of composite resin:
A. Linear coefficient of thermal expansion is twice as much the value of
amalgam and 3-4 times greater than that for tooth structures.
B. Most composites can be practically cured only to levels of 55-65%
conversion of monomer sites, usually due to inadequate curing energy from
visible light cure unit and is improved by post-curing.
12
C. Water absorption swells the polymer portion and promotes diffusion and
desorption of any unbound monomer. Water plasticizes the composite and
chemically degrades the matrix into the monomer. Increased filler content,
lower is the water absorption.
D. Microfill composites are the least wear resistant.
E. Composites with high matrix content and self cured have more tendency to
undergo yellowing. Addition of UV light absorbers and antioxidants reduce this
chance of yellowing.
F. Beveling tends to blend any color difference associated with margin and
provides more surface area for bonding.
G. Good marginal integrity—Butt joints margin wear slowly but create a
meniscus appearance against enamel. Beveling produces thinner ledges of
material that are prone to fracture.
H. Biocompatible, but unpolymerized materials are potentially cytotoxic, they
are very poorly soluble in water and are polymerized into a bound state before
dissolution or diffusion.
I. Compared to unfilled resins, filled resins are stronger, increased modulus of
elasticity (increased modulus of elasticity—less is the flexibility and vice
versa), good abrasion resistance and lower coefficient of thermal expansion
(Arathi Rao, 2012; Gladwin and Bagby, 2013).
Indications:
In primary molars composite is a satisfactory restorative material
provided that the child is cooperative so indicated in Small to moderately
sized occlusal and proximal cavities.
Due to its superior wear resistance and superior mechanical properties,
composite resin materials rather than glass ionomers are the material of
choice for the treatment of early occlusal caries in permanent teeth (Berg
& Slayton, 2009; Cameron and widmer, 2013)
13
Composite restorations are the material of choice for directly placed
esthetic restorations (Gladwin and Bagby, 2013).
1.5.5 Compomers (polyacid-modified composite resin).
Polyacid-modified resin composite resins or ‗compomers‘ are materials that
contain calcium aluminium fluorosilicate glass filler and polyacid components.
They contain either or both essential components of a GIC. However, they are
not water-based and therefore no acid–base reaction can occur. As such, they
cannot strictly be described as a glass ionomer. They set by resin
photopolymerization. The acid–base reaction does occur in the moist intra-oral
environment and allows fluoride release from the material. Successful adhesion
requires the use of dentine-bonding primers before placement (Fejerskov et al,
2008; Cameron and widmer, 2013).
Properties of compomers:
Strength and wear: High fracture strength. High wear resistance
Adhesion: High to enamel and dentin
Handling: Easy handling. High early strength. Moisture sensitive
Fluoride release: Low, probably not caries preventive (Göran Koch et al,
2017).
And the figure below (figure 1.3) show main advantages and disadvantages of
different restorative materials (Cameron and widmer, 2013).
14
figure(1.3) advantages and disadvantages of restorative materials used in
pediatric dentistry.
15
1.6 studies related to restored teeth
1.6.1 according to the age
Farooqi et al at 2015 found at their study that the age group 6-12 had the highest
level of filled teeth (o.26 ±0.90).
While Shyam et al at 2017 showed that the age group 11-14 had the highest
level of filled teeth (0.08±429).
And Ja‘far and Akram at 2017 found at their study that the age group 6-9 had
the highest percentage of filled teeth (47.42%).
1.6.2 according to the gender
Chopra et al at 2015 found at their study that the girls had more filled teeth
(0.46) comparing to boys (0.43).
Conversely; Yang et al at 2015 found at their study that the boys (0.12±0.56)
had more filled teeth than girls (0.05±0.36). Correspondingly; Ja‘far and Akram
at 2017 found that the boys (50.82%) had more filled teeth comparing to girls
(49.178%).
1.6.3 according to the jaw distribution
Alkhtib et al at 2016 found in their study that the lower jaw had more filled
teeth (0.8 ± 0.6) than upper jaw (0.1 ± 0.7).
Similarly; Ja‘far and Akram at 2017 found at their study that the lower jaw
(67.365%) had more filled teeth than the upper jaw (32.645%).
1.6.4 according to the side
Alkhtib et al at 2016 found in their study that the left side (0.1 ± 0.5) had more
filled teeth than right side (0.1 ± 0.4).
Ja‘far and Akram at 2017 found at their study that the right side (55.371%) had
higher percentage of filled teeth than the left side (44.628%).
1.6.5 according to the tooth type
Alkhtib et al at 2016 found in their study that most filled tooth was lower
primary first molar (0.4%).
16
While Ja‘far and Akram at 2017 found that the lower primary second molar was
the most filled tooth (40.909%).
And Clark and Berkowitz at 2007 found that the most filled permanent tooth
was first permanent molar (19.7%).
Chapter Two
Materials and
Methods
18
Chapter Two
Materials and Methods
This is a retrospective study made to record the work of pediatric department/
College of Dentistry/ Baghdad University in the undergraduate clinic.
The case sheets have been taken from the department achieve for the studying
years (2015-2016) and (2016-2017). After collection, separation and
organization of case sheets and numbering, the information have been recorded
which include (age, gender, the tooth involved, filling materials, and class of
filling) and entered in the computer by Microsoft Excel 2013 for tabling and
then undergo statistical analysis was done by using IBM SPSS statistic version
19.
Figure (2.1) collection and entering of the information from case sheets.
Chapter three
The Result
19
Chapter three
The Result
A total of (1484) children attended to the pediatric department in college of
dentistry/University of Baghdad form (2016-2017) and consisted of (776) boys and
(707) girls and the highest number was for the age group 9-11(527), and the total
number of (1513) children attended to the pediatric department in college of
dentistry/University of Baghdad form (2015-2016) and consisted of (775) boys and
(737) girls and the highest number was for the age group 9-11(557).[table 3.1].
Table 3.1: Distribution of the total sample by age and gender
Year Age group gender
Total boys girls
2016-2017
3-5 79 59 138
6-8 264 249 514
9-11 278 249 527
12-14 155 151 306
Total 776 707 1484
2015-2016
3-5 58 81 139
6-8 265 271 537
9-11 302 255 557
12-14 150 131 281
Total 775 737 1513
Among primary teeth the lower primary second molar (97) 6.3% found to be the
most filled primary tooth for 2016-2017 year. The boys had highest level 207 (13.5
%) of filled primary teeth compared to girls 179(11.6 %). The highest filled
primary teeth in mandibular arch 220 (14%) than maxillary arch 116 (11.1%). The
filled primary teeth in the right side 163(10.5%) was lower than the left side
226(14.6%).
20
Similarly, among primary teeth the lower primary second molar (81) 5.3% found
to be the most filled primary tooth for 2015-2016 year. The boys had higher
number 188(12.6%) of filled primary teeth compared to girls 141(9.2%) and the
most filled primary tooth in maxillary arch 183(12.2%) compared to mandibular
arch 146(9.6%). The filled primary teeth in the right side 136(8.9%) was lower
than the left side 193(12.9%). [Table 3.2]
Table 3.2: filled primary teeth according to tooth type, gender, jaw and side
Primary
teeth
Gender
Total boys girls
Right Left Right Left
No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. %
2016-
2017
UE 10 .7 18 1.2 18 1.2 8 .5 54 3.6
166 11.1
UD 12 .8 10 .7 9 .6 6 .4 37 2.5
UC 10 .6 15 1 9 .6 12 .8 46 3
UB 5 .3 4 .3 3 .2 1 .1 13 .9
UA 5 .3 4 .3 4 .3 3 .2 16 1.1
LE 18 1.2 35 2.2 8 .5 36 2.4 97 6.3
220 14
LD 13 .9 16 1.1 15 .8 20 1.3 64 4.1
LC 5 .3 16 .9 8 .4 6 .4 35 2
LB 2 .1 3 .2 4 .3 3 .2 12 .8
LA 1 .1 5 .3 4 .3 2 .1 12 .8
Total 81 5.3 126 8.2 82 5.2 97 6.4
386 25.1 386 25.1 207 (13.5%) 179 (11.6%)
2015-
2016
UE 21 1.4 18 1.2 8 .5 18 1.2 65 4.3
183 12.2
UD 15 1 10 .7 4 .3 12 .8 41 2.8
UC 15 1 7 .5 7 .4 7 .4 36 2.3
UB 5 .3 3 .2 1 .1 4 .3 13 .9
UA 6 .4 6 .4 9 .6 7 .5 28 1.9
LE 10 .7 38 2.5 8 .5 25 1.6 81 5.3
146 9.6
LD 3 .2 13 .9 9 .6 8 .5 33 2.2
LC 5 .3 5 .3 4 .2 5 .3 19 1.1
LB 1 .1 1 .1 1 .1 1 .1 4 .4
LA 2 .1 4 .3 2 .1 1 .1 9 .6
Total 83 5.5 105 7.1 53 3.4 88 5.8
329 21.8 329 21.8 188(12.6%) 141(9.2%)
21
Among the age groups; the age group 6-8 was found to have the highest level
179(12.7%) of filled primary teeth for 2016-2017 year, and the same was found for
the 2015-2016 year concerning age groups 150(10.2%) of filled primary
teeth.[table 3.3].
Table 3.3: filled primary teeth according to age group
Primary
teeth
Age groups
total
3-5 6-8 9-11 12-14
Right Left Right Left Right Left Right Left
No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. %
2016-
2017
UE 4 0.3 0 0 15 1 11 0.7 9 0.6 13 0.9 0 0 2 0.1 54
UD 0 0 3 0.2 14 0.9 7 0.5 7 0.5 5 0.3 0 0 1 0.1 37
UC 0 0 0 0 5 0.3 16 0.9 14 0.8 11 0.7 0 0 0 0 46
UB 3 0.2 2 0.1 4 0.3 3 0.2 1 0.1 0 0 0 0 0 0 13
UA 3 0.2 3 0.2 6 0.4 4 0.3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16
LE 4 0.2 5 0.3 10 0.7 33 2.2 20 1.3 23 1.5 2 0.1 0 0 97
LD 4 0.3 5 0.3 9 0.6 18 1.2 11 0.7 12 0.9 2 0.1 3 0.2 64
LC 2 0.1 0 0 2 0.1 8 0.5 8 0.5 14 1.1 0 0 1 0.1 35
LB 0 0 0 0 4 0.3 4 0.3 0 0 2 0.1 2 0.1 0 0 12
LA 0 0 0 0 3 0.2 3 0.2 2 0.1 2 0.1 0 0 2 0.1 12
Total 38(2.4%) 179(12.7%) 154(10.3%) 15(0.9%) 386 386
2015-
2016
UE 8 0.6 6 0.4 14 0.9 7 0.5 16 1 14 0.9 0 0 0 0 65
UD 0 0 1 0.1 12 0.6 10 0.7 11 0.8 6 0.4 0 0 1 0.1 41
UC 0 0 0 0 9 0.6 9 0.6 9 0.6 9 0.6 0 0 0 0 36
UB 1 0.1 2 0.1 1 0.1 4 0.3 4 0.3 1 0.1 0 0 0 0 13
UA 8 0.5 3 0.2 9 0.6 8 0.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 28
LE 3 0.2 11 0.7 16 1.1 18 1.3 17 1.2 8 0.5 6 0.4 2 0.1 81
LD 1 0.1 1 0.1 6 0.4 16 1.1 5 0.3 3 0.2 0 0 1 0.1 33
LC 1 0.1 4 0.3 1 0.1 6 0.4 3 0.2 3 0.2 0 0 1 0.1 19
LB 0 0 0 0 1 0.1 1 0.1 0 0 1 0.1 1 0.1 0 0 4
LA 0 0 0 0 1 0.1 1 0.1 1 0.1 1 0.1 2 0.1 3 0.2 9
Total 50(3.5%) 150(10.2%) 112(9%) 17(1.2%) 329
22
Dental amalgam was found to be the most filling material used for primary teeth
(192 (12.4%) for the year 2016-2017. On the other hand composite was the most
used filling material 154 (10.5%) in 2015-2016.[table 3.4]
Table 3.4: filled primary teeth according to filling material
Primary
teeth
Filling materials
total amalgam composite GI T.F.
Right Left Right Left Right Left Right Left
No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. %
2016-
2017
UE 19 1.3 21 1.4 3 0.2 0 0 6 0.4 3 0.2 0 0 2 0.1 54
UD 10 0.7 9 0.6 4 0.3 3 0.2 7 0.5 4 0.3 0 0 0 0 37
UC 0 0 0 0 19 1.1 25 1.5 0 0 2 0.1 0 0 0 0 46
UB 0 0 0 0 7 0.5 5 0.4 0 0 1 0.1 0 0 0 0 13
UA 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 0.5 8 0.5 0 0 1 0.1 0 0 16
LE 35 2.3 47 2.8 0 0 4 0.3 1 0.1 8 0.5 0 0 2 0.1 97
LD 22 1.3 29 2 2 0.1 3 0.2 4 0.3 4 0.3 0 0 0 0 64
LC 0 0 0 0 10 0.5 19 1.1 3 0.2 3 0.2 0 0 0 0 35
LB 0 0 0 0 2 0.1 2 0.1 4 0.3 4 0.3 0 0 0 0 12
LA 0 0 0 0 3 0.2 1 0.1 4 0.3 4 0.3 0 0 0 0 12
Total 192 (12.4%) 119 (7.4%) 70 (4.9%) 5 (0.3%) 386
2015-
2016
UE 13 0.9 11 0.7 14 1 20 1.5 2 0.1 5 0.3 0 0 0 0 65
UD 12 0.8 8 0.5 6 0.4 4 0.3 1 0.1 4 0.3 0 0 6 0.4 41
UC 0 0 0 0 22 1.3 11 0.8 0 0 2 0.1 1 0.1 0 0 36
UB 0 0 0 0 5 0.3 7 0.5 0 0 1 0.1 0 0 0 0 13
UA 0 0 0 0 13 0.8 10 0.7 3 0.2 2 0.1 0 0 0 0 28
LE 32 2.1 36 2.2 4 0.3 7 0.5 0 0 2 0.1 0 0 0 0 81
LD 15 0.9 13 0.9 0 0 5 0.3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 33
LC 0 0 1 0.1 6 0.4 7 0.5 4 0.3 1 0.1 0 0 0 0 19
LB 0 0 0 0 2 0.1 2 0.1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4
LA 0 0 0 0 5 0.4 4 0.3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9
Total 141 (9.1%) 154 (10.5%) 27 (1.8%) 7 (0.5%) 329
According to GV Black‘s classification; it was found that class II (157 (10.5%))
had the highest level for filled primary teeth among other classes in 2016-2017
year, on the other hand class I (131 (8%)) was the most predominant class for
filled primary teeth in 2015-2016.[table 3.5]
23
Table 3.5: Black’s classification of filled primary teeth
Prim
teeth
Classification
Cl I Cl II Cl III Cl IV Cl V Cl VI
Right Left Right Left Right Left Right Left Right Left Right Left Total
No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. %
2016-
2017
UE 20 1.4 18 1.2 10 0.7 6 0.4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 54
UD 4 0.3 3 0.2 16 1.2 14 1.1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 37
UC 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 19 1.1 3 0.2 0 0 0 0 19 1.1 5 0.3 0 0 0 0 46
UB 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 0.5 5 0.3 0 0 0 0 13
UA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 0.6 7 0.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16
LE 36 2.4 4 0.3 26 1.8 31 2.1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 97
LD 3 0.2 7 0.4 28 1.7 26 1.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 64
LC 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0.3 2 0.1 0 0 0 0 16 1.1 13 0.8 0 0 0 0 35
LB 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0.4 6 0.4 0 0 0 0 12
LA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0.3 7 0.5 0 0 0 0 12
Total 95 (6.4%) 157 (10.5%) 28 (1.7%) 16 (1.1%) 90 (5.7%) 0 386
2015-
2016
UE 23 1.4 20 1.1 10 0.5 12 0.7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 65
UD 5 0.3 6 0.4 15 0.9 15 0.9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 41
UC 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 22 1.2 14 0.9 0 0 0 0 36
UB 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0.4 7 0.5 0 0 0 0 13
UA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0.1 3 0.2 11 0.8 13 0.9 0 0 0 0 28
LE 27 1.6 22 1.3 15 0.9 17 1.1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 81
LD 18 1.2 10 0.7 2 0.1 3 0.2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 33
LC 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0.1 2 0.1 0 0 0 0 5 0.3 10 0.7 0 0 0 0 19
LB 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0.1 2 0.1 0 0 0 0 4
LA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0.3 5 0.3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9
131 (8%) 89 (5.3%) 13 (0.8%) 4 (0.3%) 92 (5.9%) 0 (0%) 329
24
Regarding the permanent teeth; the lower permanent first molar found to be the
most filled permanent tooth 180(12.1%) in 2016-2017 year. Girls had more filled
permanent teeth 218 (14.7%) than boys 185 (12.1%). Furthermore it was found
more filled permanent teeth in mandibular arch 220 (14.9%) than maxillary arch
(183) 11.8% and in the right side 202(14.1%) was higher than the left side 201
(12.6%).
Similarly; the lower permanent first molar (185) 12.1% found to be the most filled
permanent tooth in 2015-2016 year. The boys had higher level 194 (12.5%) of
filled permanent teeth than girls 184 (11.9%). It was found more filled permanent
teeth in mandibular arch (229) 15.1% than mandibular arch (149) 9.3% , but the
restores permanent teeth in the right side 181( 11.6%) was less than the left side
197 (12.8%).[Table 3.6]
25
Table 3.6: filled permanent teeth according to tooth type, gender, jaw and side
Perman
ent
teeth
Gender
total boys Girls
Right Left Right Left
No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. %
2016-
2017
U7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
183 11.8
U6 11 0.7 10 0.6 18 1.6 16 0.7 55 3.6
U5 0 0 1 0.1 0 0 4 0.3 5 0.4
U4 4 0.3 2 0.1 1 0.1 2 0.1 9 0.6
U3 2 0.1 0 0 0 0 2 0.1 4 0.2
U2 10 0.7 2 0.1 5 0.3 10 0.7 27 1.8
U1 28 1.9 19 1.1 15 1 21 1.2 83 5.2
L7 3 0.2 8 0.5 7 0.5 5 0.3 23 1.5
220 14.9
L6 38 2.5 42 2.8 50 3.4 50 3.4 180 12.1
L5 1 0.1 4 0.3 7 0.5 2 0.1 14 1
L4 0 0 0 0 1 0.1 0 0 1 0.1
L3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
L2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
L1 0 0 0 0 1 0.1 1 0.1 2 0.2
Total 97 6.5 88 5.6 105 7.6 113 7
403 26.7 185 (12.1%) 218 (14.7%)
2015-
2016
U7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
149 9.3
U6 6 0.4 19 1.1 12 0.8 5 0.3 42 2.6
U5 0 0 1 0.1 0 0 1 0.1 2 0.2
U4 1 0.1 4 0.3 2 0.1 3 0.2 10 0.7
U3 2 0.1 0 0 3 0.2 0 0 5 0.3
U2 10 0.5 2 0.1 8 0.4 1 0.1 21 1.1
U1 19 1.2 18 1.2 15 1 17 1 69 4.4
L7 3 0.2 7 0.5 9 0.6 4 0.3 23 1.6
229 15.1
L6 41 2.7 49 3.2 43 2.8 52 3.4 185 12.1
L5 1 0.1 5 0.3 2 0.1 1 0.1 9 0.6
L4 0 0 3 0.2 1 0.1 1 0.1 5 0.4
L3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
L2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
L1 1 0.1 2 0.1 2 0.1 2 0.1 7 0.4
Total 84 5.4 110 7.1 97 6.2 87 5.7
378 24.4 194 (12.5%) 184 (11.9%)
26
Among the age groups it was found that age group 12-14 had the highest frequency
201 (13.7%) of filled permanent teeth in 2016-2017 year, and the same was found
for the 2015-2016 year , age group 12-14 had the highest frequency 160(10.6%) of
filled permanent teeth.[table 3.7].
Dental amalgam was found to be the most filling material used for permanent teeth
259 (17.3%) and 239 (15.8 %) for the years 2016-2017 and 2015-2016
respectively. [table 3.8]
According to Black‘s classification; class I was found to be the most class made
for permanent teeth than other classes in both 2016-2017 and 2015-2016 years
{196 (13.2%) and 175 (11.6%) respectively}. [tables 3.9 and 3.19]
27
Table 3.7: filled permanent teeth according to age groups
Perman
ent
teeth
Age groups
total 3-5 6-8 9-11 12-14
Right Left Right Left Right Left Right Left
No. % No. % N
o. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. %
2016-
2017
U7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
U6 0 0 0 0 2 0.1 2 .1 11 0.6 17 0.7 18 1.2 5 0.4 55 3.6
U5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0.3 5 0.4
U4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0.1 0 0 3 0.2 4 0.3 9 0.6
U3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0.1 2 0.1 4 0.2
U2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0.4 3 0.2 9 0.6 9 0.6 27 1.8
U1 0 0 0 0 7 0.5 4 .3 21 1.2 15 0.8 15 1 21 1.2 83 5.2
L7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 0.7 13 0.9 23 1.5
L6 0 0 0 0 18 1.4 20 1.5 31 2.1 35 2.3 39 2.9 37 2.5 180 12.1
L5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0.3 4 0.3 4 0.3 2 0.1 14 1
L4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0.1 0 0 1 0.1
L3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
L2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
L1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0.1 1 0.1 2 0.2
Total 0 53 (3.9%) 149 (9.1%) 201 (13.7%) 403 26.7
2015-
2016
U7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
U6 0 0 0 0 7 0.5 1 0.1 9 0.6 9 0.4 9 0.6 7 0.4 42 2.6
U5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0.1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0.2
U4 0 0 0 0 1 0.1 0 0 0 0 6 0.4 2 0.1 1 0.1 10 0.7
U3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0.3 0 0 1 0.1 0 0 5 0.3
U2 0 0 0 0 2 0.1 0 0 8 0.6 2 0.1 8 0.6 1 0.1 21 1.1
U1 0 0 0 0 4 0.3 1 0.1 17 1.1 15 1 12 0.8 20 1.1 69 4.4
L7 0 0 0 0 1 0.1 2 0.1 1 0.1 4 0.3 10 0.7 5 0.3 23 1.6
L6 0 0 0 0 15 1 25 1.7 37 2.4 39 2.5 29 1.9 40 2.6 185 12.1
L5 0 0 0 0 1 0.1 0 0 0 0 2 0.1 2 0.1 4 0.3 9 0.6
L4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0.1 4 0.3 5 0.4
L3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
L2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
L1 0 0 0 0 1 0.1 2 0.1 0 0 0 0 2 0.2 2 0.1 7 0.4
Total 0 63 (4.4%) 155 (10.2%) 160 (10.6%) 378 24.4
28
Table 3.8: filled permanent teeth according to filling material
Perman
ent
teeth
materials
total amalgam composite GI T.F.
Right Left Right Left Right Left Right Left
No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % N
o. % No. % No. % No. %
2016-
2017
U7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
U6 31 2 23 1.6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0.1 0 0 55 3.6
U5 0 0 5 0.4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0.4
U4 3 0.2 2 0.1 2 0.1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0.1 9 0.6
U3 0 0 0 0 2 0.1 2 0.1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0.2
U2 0 0 0 0 13 0.8 12 0.8 0 0 0 0 2 0.1 0 0 27 1.8
U1 0 0 0 0 49 3.3 34 1.9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 83 5.2
L7 10 0.7 12 0.8 0 0 1 0.1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 23 1.5
L6 80 5.4 78 5.2 2 0.1 5 0.3 0 0 0 0 6 0.4 9 0.6 180 12.1
L5 8 0.5 4 0.3 0 0 2 0.1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 1
L4 1 0.1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0.1
L3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
L2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
L1 1 0.1 1 0.1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0.2
Total 259 (17.3%) 124 (8.2%) 0 20 (1.3%) 403 26.7
2015-
2016
U7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
U6 17 1.2 20 1.2 4 0.3 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0.1 0 0 42 2.6
U5 1 0.1 1 0.1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0.2
U4 3 0.2 7 0.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 0.7
U3 0 0 0 0 5 0.3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0.3
U2 0 0 0 0 17 0.8 3 0.2 0 0 0 0 1 0.1 0 0 21 1.1
U1 0 0 0 0 35 2.4 34 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 69 4.4
L7 11 0.7 11 0.7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0.1 0 0 23 1.6
L6 68 4.5 90 5.9 9 0.6 5 0.3 0 0 0 0 7 0.4 6 0.3 185 12.1
L5 3 0.2 2 0.1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0.3 9 0.6
L4 1 0.1 4 0.3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0.4
L3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
L2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
L1 0 0 0 0 3 0.2 4 0.3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 0.4
Total 239 (15.8 %) 119 (6.6%) 0 20 (1.2%) 378 24.4
29
Table 3.9: Black’s classification of filled permanent teeth in 2016-2017
Perm teeth
classification total Cl I Cl II Cl III Cl IV Cl V Cl VI
Right Left Right Left Right Left Right Left Right Left Right Left
No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. %
2016-2017
U7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
U6 18 1.2 12 0.8 15 1 10 0.7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 55 3.6
U5 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 .3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0.4
U4 2 0.1 2 0.1 3 0.2 2 0.1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 0.6
U3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 .1 0 0 0 0 2 .1 0 0 0 0 4 0.2
U2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 1 12 .8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 27 1.8
U1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 18 1.2 22 1.5 20 1.3 23 1.6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 83 5.2
L7 10 .7 13 .9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 23 1.5
L6 75 5 50 3.4 30 2 25 1.7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 180 12.1
L5 8 .5 6 .4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 1
L4 0 0 0 0 1 .1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0.1
L3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
L2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
L1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 .1 1 .1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0.2
total 196 (13.2%) 91 (6.3%) 69 (4.3%) 45 (3%) 2 (0.1%) 0 403 26.7
30
Table 3.10: Black’s classification of filled permanent teeth in 2015-2016
Perm teeth
classification total Cl I Cl II Cl III Cl IV Cl V Cl VI
Right Left Right Left Right Left Right Left Right Left Right Left
No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. %
2015-2016
U7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
U6 12 .8 12 0.8 8 0.5 7 0.4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 .1 2 .2 42 2.6
U5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 .1 1 .1 0 0 0 0 2 0.2
U4 3 .2 7 .5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 0.7
U3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 .3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0.3
U2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 .4 7 .4 4 .3 4 .3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 21 1.1
U1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 .6 8 .5 18 1.2 23 1.6 5 .3 6 .4 0 0 0 0 69 4.4
L7 12 .8 11 .7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 23 1.6
L6 59 3.8 56 3.7 41 2.7 29 1.9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 185 12.1
L5 3 .2 0 0 0 0 6 .4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 0.6
L4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 .1 4 .3 0 0 0 0 5 0.4
L3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
L2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
L1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 .3 3 .2 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 0.4
total 175 (11.6%) 91 (6%) 42 (2.8%) 49 (3.2%) 18 (1.2%) 3(0.2%) 378 24.4
Chapter Four
Discussion
31
Chapter Four
Discussion
In this study the results showed that the age group 6-8 had the most filled teeth
for primary dentition and the age group 12-14 for permanent dentition for the
years 2016-2017 and 2015-2016 respectively. This result is in agreement with
other studies (Farooqi et al, 2015; Ja‘far and Akram, 2017; and Shyam et al,
2017). This may be interpreted by that at this age group the child will be aware
about the importance of dental treatment than younger children.
According to the gender the boys had more filled teeth than girls in primary
dentition for years 2016-2017 and 2015-2016 and for permanent dentition in
2015-2016, which agree with Yang et al, 2015 and Ja‘far and Akram, 2017.
While the girls had more filled permanent teeth in 2016-2017 than boys, and
this is in accordance with the results of Chopra et al at 2015. This may be due to
the controversial results of the relation between dental caries and the gender.
For jaw distribution this study showed higher value of filled teeth in lower arch
than the upper arch for primary and permanent dentition in both studying years,
which is similar to that of Alkhtib et al, 2016 and Ja‘far and Akram, 2017 which
may be attributed to the interest of dental students to do lower teeth fillings than
upper fillings when there is no dental complaint. Except for primary dentition in
year 2015-2016 there were more filled upper primary teeth than lower which
may be associated with a complaint that make them searching for dental
treatment.
According to side distribution this study showed the right side had lower
percentage of filled teeth in comparing to left side for primary and permanent
dentition for both studying years, which agree with result of Alkhtib et al, 2016.
Except for permanent dentition in year 2016-2017 where the right side had
32
highest percentage of filled teeth and this agree with result of Ja‘far and Akram
, 2017. The dental caries sometimes increase in the left side than the right side
may be attributed to the skills of the right handed children in tooth brushing
which tend to clean the right side more efficiently.
The lower primary second molar was the most filled primary tooth for both
years and the same result was found by Ja‘far and Akram, 2017.
While for permanent teeth lower permanent first molar was the most filled
permanent tooth and this result appeared the same by Clark and Berkowitz at,
2007.
In 2016-2017 Amalgam filling material get the highest percentage among other
filling materials for primary and permanent teeth and the same in 2015-2016 for
permanent teeth, while composite had the highest value in primary teeth in
2015-2016.
According to Black‘s classification; class I was the most predominant among
other classes in year 2015-2016 for both primary and permanent dentition and
the same result for permanent dentition in 2015-2016, while for primary
dentition in 2016-2017 class II was the most predominant, this result give a clue
that there is increase in dental education for caring primary teeth in their early
or simple stage of dental caries.
33
Conclusions
1) The age group 6-8 for primary dentition and 12-14 for permanent
dentition were the most age groups with filled teeth in both years 2016-
2017 and 2015-2016.
2) The boys had the more filled teeth in primary dentition in both years in
compared to girls, except the permanent dentition in 2016-2017 had
higher level in girls than in boys.
3) More filled teeth in the lower arch than the upper except for primary
dentition in year 2015-2016 there were more filled upper primary teeth
than lower.
4) Left side had more filled teeth than right side except for permanent
dentition in year 2016-2017 where the right side had highest percentage.
5) Lower primary second molar was the most filled primary tooth, and the
lower permanent first molar was the most filled permanent tooth.
6) Dental amalgam was the most filling material for both primary and
permanent teeth except for primary dentition in 2015-2016.
7) Class I filling was the most class among the other classes in primary teeth
and permanent dentition for both years except for primary dentition in
2016-2017 was class II.
34
References:
(A)
Alb C, Alb SF, Dudea D, Nicola C, Moldovan M, Culic B, Buduru S,
Mesaros A. 2010, In vitro testing of an experimental dental composite
resin and adhesive system, Rev Med Chir Soc Med Nat Iasi, 114(1):227-
32.
Amandeep Chopra, Nanak Chand Rao, Nidhi Gupta, Shelja
Vashisth, and Manav Lakhanpal.2015, The Predisposing Factors between
Dental Caries and Deviations from Normal Weight, N Am J Med Sci.
7(4), 151–159.
Angus C Cameron and Richard P Widmer.2013. Handbook of Pediatric
Dentistry. Elsevier. 4th
edition, 79-85.
Arathi Rao.2012. Principles and Practice of pedodontics. Jaypee Brothers
Medical Publishers.3rd
edition, 240-260.
Asmaa Alkhtib, Aghareed Ghanim, Meredith Temple-Smith, Louise
Brearley Messer, Marie Pirotta, and Michael Morgan .2016, Prevalence of
early childhood caries and enamel defects in four and five-year old Qatari
preschool children, BMC Oral Health, 16, 73.
(B)
Berezina S, Il‘icheva AA, Podzorova LI, Ţălu Ş. 2015, Surface
micromorphology of dental composites [CE-TZP] - [AL2 O3 ] with Ca+2
modifier, Microsc Res Techniq, 78:840-846.
Burke FJ, McHugh S, Hall AC, Randall RC, Widstrom E, Forss H. 2003,
Amalgam and composite use in UK general dental practice in 2001, Br
Dent J, 194(11):613–8.
35
(C)
Christensen GJ. 2005, Longevity of posterior tooth restorations, J Am
Dent Assoc, 136(2):201–3.
(D)
Dietschi D, Perakis N, Vinci D, Krejci I. 2001, Indirect Resin- Based
Restoration: The belle Glass HP System, Quintessence of Dental
Technology, 24:28-40.
D. Christopher Clark and Jonathan Berkowitz. 2007, The Relationship
Between the Number of Sound, Decayed, and Filled Permanent Tooth
Surfaces and the Number of Sealed Surfaces in Children and
Adolescents, J Public Health Dent,57(3),171-175.
(E)
Elisabeth Kaplan,2000, ―We Are What We Collect, We Collect What We
Are: Archives and the Construction of Identity,‖ American Archivist 63
(Spring/Summer ): 126-151.
(F)
Fang Yang, Ying Zhang, Xiao Yuan, Jiangbo Yu, Shulan
Chen, Zhenggang Chen, Dawei Guo, Jiefeng Cai, Ning Ma,and Exiang
Guo. 2015, Caries experience and its association with weight status
among 8-year-old children in Qingdao, China, J Int Soc Prev Community
Dent, 5(1): 52–58.
Faraz A. Farooqi, Abdul Khabeer, Imran A. Moheet, Soban Q.
Khan, Imran Farooq, and Aws S, ArRejaie.2015, Prevalence of dental
caries in primary and permanent teeth and its relation with tooth brushing
habits among schoolchildren in Eastern Saudi Arabia, Saudi Med J,
36(6), 737–742.
36
Fuks AB.2002, The use of amalgam in pediatric dentistry, Pediatr Dent,
24:448-455.
(G)
Göran Koch, Sven Poulsen, Ivar Espelid, and Dorte Haubek .2017.
Pediatric Dentistry A clinical approach. Blackwell, 3rd
edition, 138-141.
(J)
Ja‘far ZJ, Akram D. Distribution of Restored Primary Molars in a Group
of Children Attended the Pediatric Department in College of Dentistry /
University of Baghdad from 2014-2015 (a retrospective study). Accepted
in IJSR.
Jeffrey A. Dean. 2016. Mc Donald and Avery‘s dentistry for the child
And adolescent. elsevier,10th
edition, 214-219.
Joel H. Berg and Rebecca L. Slayton.2009. Early Childhood Oral Health.
Blackwell, 1st edition, 68-79.
(K)
Kenneth J. Anusavice, Chiayi Shen, and H. Ralp Rawls.2012.
philips‘science of dental material. elsevier, 12th
edition, 320-325.
(L)
LA Tran & L Brearley Messer. 2003, Clinicians‘ choices of restorative
materials for children, Australian Dental Journal, 48 (4), 221-232.
(M)
Marcia Gladwin and Michael Bagby.2013.clinical aspects of dental
material. Walter Kluwer, 4th
edition, 62-65.
37
(O)
Ole Fejerskov, Edwina Kidd, Bente Nyvad, and Vibeke Baelum.2008,
Dental CariesThe Disease and its Clinical Management, Blackwell
Munksgaard, 392-395.
Osborne JW, Summitt JB, Roberts HW. 2002, The use of dental amalgam
in pediatric dentistry: review of the literature, Pediatr Dent, 24:439-447.
(P)
Petersen PE, Bourgeois D, Ogawa H, Estupinan-Day S, Ndiaye C. 2005,
The global burden of oral diseases and risks to oral health, Bull World
Health Organ, 83:661–9.
(R)
Radhey Shyam, BC Manjunath, Adarsh Kumar, Ridhi Narang, Ankita
Goyal, and Ankita Piplani. 2017, Assessment of Dental Caries Spectrum
among 11 to 14-Year-Old School Going Children in India, J Clin Diagn
Res, 11(6).
(S)
Salerno M, Diaspro A.2015, Dentistry on the bridge to nanoscience and
nanotechnology, Front. Mater, 2:19.
(V)
V Gopikrishna.2015. preclinical of manual conservative dentistry and
endodontics. elsevier, 2nd
edition, 1.