At present, many materials and techniques are used to treat carious primary teeth. All of these have their proponents who claim they provide the best performance in terms of longevity, aesthetics, bio-compatibility, etc (Qvist, 2010; Yengopal et al., 2009). However, despite the great variety of techniques and materials, there is no definite evidence for the most effective approach when dental caries in primary molars is concerned, as yet. On the other hand, there is conclusive evidence that shows that glass-ionomer cement is an inappropriate material for class II restorations in primary teeth, due to its significant shorter longevity compared with other restorative materials like compomer and amalgam.
Recently, there is re-surging interest in more biological (less-invasive) techniques: such as the Non-Restorative Caries Treatment (Peretz & Gluck, 2006; Gruythuysen et al., 2010) or stainless steel crowns with the advent of the Hall technique in Scotland (Innes et al., 2007). However, there is lack of comparative evidence from high quality clinical trials leading to uncertainty in the effectiveness of these techniques. In addition, these techniques are rarely compared with standard fillings.
