Volume 7, Issue 4 (10-2022)                   J Res Dent Maxillofac Sci 2022, 7(4): 267-272 | Back to browse issues page

XML Print

Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:

Kadhi H, Winnier J. Sandwich Technique in Primary Teeth: A Review. J Res Dent Maxillofac Sci 2022; 7 (4) :267-272
URL: http://jrdms.dentaliau.ac.ir/article-1-441-en.html
1- Department of Pediatric and Preventive Dentistry, D Y Patil Deemed to be University, School of Dentistry, Nerul, Navi Mumbai, Maharashtra, India
2- Department of Pediatric and Preventive Dentistry, D Y Patil Deemed to be University, School of Dentistry, Nerul, Navi Mumbai, Maharashtra, India , jasmin.winnier@dypatil.edu
Abstract:   (309 Views)
Background and Aim: The sandwich technique is a restorative method where the lost dentin is replaced with glass ionomer (GI) cement and the lost enamel is replaced with composite resin.
Various modifications of this technique have been introduced in order to increase the longevity of this restoration. Hence, the aim of this review article was to assess the use of sandwich technique in primary teeth.   

Materials and Methods: After an initial screening of potentially relevant articles through electronic search of journals indexed in PubMed Central, Science Direct, Wiley Online Library, Springer and Google Scholar, articles on sandwich restorations in primary teeth were included.
Results: Literature suggests that the sandwich technique is successfully practiced in carious lesions in permanent teeth; however, very few studies are done on primary teeth.
Conclusion: With the advent of newer resin cements and bonding agents, the sandwich technique is much simplified. However not enough clinical studies are available in the literature on the sandwich technique and its modifications in primary teeth. More studies need to be conducted in primary teeth using this restorative technique.

Full-Text [PDF 672 kb]   (221 Downloads) |   |   Full-Text (HTML)  (139 Views)  
Type of Study: Review article | Subject: Restorative Dentistry

1. Wilson AD, McLean JW. Glass Ionomer Cement. Chicago, Ill: Quintessence Publishing Co; 1988. Laminate restorations; pp. 159-78.
2. Bugliarello G. Biomimesis: the road less traveled. The Bridge. 1997;27(3): 2-3.
3. Tjäderhane L, Nascimento FD, Breschi L, Mazzoni A, Tersariol IL, Geraldeli S, Tezvergil Mutluay A, Carrilho MR, Car-valho RM, Tay FR, Pashley DH. Optimizing dentin bond durabil-ity: control of collagen degradation by matrix metalloproteinases and cysteine cathepsins. Dent Mater. 2013 Jan;29(1):116-35. [DOI:10.1016/j.dental.2012.08.004] [PMID] [PMCID]
4. Croll TP. The "sandwich" technique. J Esthet Restor Dent. 2004;16(4):210-2. [DOI:10.1111/j.1708-8240.2004.tb00037.x] [PMID]
5. Suzuki M, Jordan RE. Glass ionomer-composite sandwich technique. J Am Dent Assoc. 1990 Jan;120(1):55-7. [DOI:10.14219/jada.archive.1990.0001] [PMID]
6. Croll TP, Cavanaugh RR. Posterior resin-based composite restorations: a second opinion. J Esthet Restor Dent. 2002; 14(5):303-12. [DOI:10.1111/j.1708-8240.2002.tb00526.x] [PMID]
7. Arora V, Nikhil V, Sawani S, Arora P. The open sandwich tech-nique with glass ionomer cement - a critical evaluation. 2013.
8. Reid JS, Saunders WP, Sharkey SW, Williams CE. An in-vitro investigation of microleakage and gap size of glass ion-omer/composite resin "sandwich" restorations in primary teeth. ASDC J Dent Child. 1994 Jul-Aug;61(4):255-9.
9. Uno S, Finger WJ, Fritz U. Long-term mechanical characteristics of resin-modified glass ionomer restorative materials. Dent Mater. 1996 Jan;12(1):64-9. [DOI:10.1016/S0109-5641(96)80066-2]
10. Irie M, Suzuki K. Marginal seal of resin-modified glass iono-mers and compomers: effect of delaying polishing procedure after one-day storage. Oper Dent. 2000; 25(6): 488-96.
11. Pereira PN, Yamada T, Tei R, Tagami J. Bond strength and interface micromorphology of an improved resin-modified glass ionomer cement. Am J Dent. 1997 Jun;10(3):128-32. Erratum in: Am J Dent 1997 Aug;10(4):172.
12. Carvalho RM, Pereira JC, Yoshiyama M, Pashley DH. A review of polymerization contraction: the influence of stress develop-ment versus stress relief. Oper Dent. 1996 Jan-Feb; 21(1):17-24.
13. Davidson CL. Glass-ionomer bases under posterior composites. J Esthet Dent. 1994;6(5):223-4. [DOI:10.1111/j.1708-8240.1994.tb00863.x] [PMID]
14. Tolidis K, Nobecourt A, Randall RC. Effect of a resin-modified glass ionomer liner on volumetric polymerization shrinkage of various composites. Dent Mater. 1998 Nov;14(6):417-23. [DOI:10.1016/S0300-5712(99)00016-0]
15. Hagge MS, Lindemuth JS, Mason JF, Simon JF. Effect of four intermediate layer treatments on microleakage of Class II composite restorations. Gen Dent. 2001 Sep-Oct;49(5):489-95; quiz 496-7.
16. Loguercio AD, Alessandra R, Mazzocco KC, Dias AL,Busato AL, Singer Jda M, Rosa P. Microleakage in class II compo-site resin restorations: total bonding and open sandwich technique. J Adhes Dent. 2002 Summer;4(2):137-44.
17. Suwatviroj P, Messer LB, Palamara JE. The effects of cavity preparation and lamination on bond strength and frac-ture of tooth-colored restorations in primary molars. Pediatr Dent. 2003 Nov-Dec;25(6):534-40.
18. Cannon ML. A clinical study of the "open sandwich" tech-nique in pediatric dental practice. J Dent Child (Chic). 2003 Jan-Apr;70(1):65-70.
19. Atieh M. Stainless steel crown versus modified open-sandwich restorations for primary molars: a 2-year ran-domized clinical trial. Int J Paediatr Dent. 2008 Sep; 18 (5):325-32. [DOI:10.1111/j.1365-263X.2007.00900.x] [PMID]
20. Bona AD, Pinzetta C, Rosa V. Microleakage of acid etched glass ionomer sandwich restorations. J Minim Interv Dent. 2009;2(1):36-44.
21. Fragkou S, Nikolaidis A, Tsiantou D, Achilias D, Kotsanos N. Tensile bond characteristics between composite resin and res-in-modified glass-ionomer restoratives used in the open-sandwich technique. Eur Arch Paediatr Dent. 2013 Aug;14(4):239-45. Paediatr Dent. Jun 27, 2013;14(4):239-45. [DOI:10.1007/s40368-013-0055-2] [PMID]
22. Kleverlaan CJ, Van Duinen RN, Feilzer AJ. Mechanical proper-ties of glass ionomer cements affected by curing methods. Dent Mater. 2004 Jan 1;20(1):45-50. [DOI:10.1016/S0109-5641(03)00067-8]
23. Fourie J, Smit CF. Cervical microleakage in Class II open-sandwich restorations: an in vitro study. SADJ. 2011 Aug;66(7):320-4.
24. Pinheiro SL, Oda M, Matson E, Duarte DA, Guedes-Pinto AC. Simultaneous activation technique: an alternative for bonding composite resin to glass ionomer. Pediatr Dent. 2003 May-Jun;25(3):270-4.
25. Knight GM. Open and closed sandwiches. Aesthet Update. 2011 May:38-9.
26. Ortiz-Ruiz AJ, Pérez-Guzmán N, Rubio-Aparicio M, Sánchez-Meca J. Success rate of proximal tooth-coloured direct restora-tions in primary teeth at 24 months: a meta-analysis. Sci Rep. 2020 Apr 14;10(1):6409.

Add your comments about this article : Your username or Email:

Send email to the article author

Rights and permissions
Creative Commons License This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

© 2023 CC BY-NC 4.0 | Journal of Research in Dental and Maxillofacial Sciences

Designed & Developed by : Yektaweb