Restorations of primary molars with conventional glass ionomer cement showed increased risk of failure than compomer , resin-modified glass ionomer cement , amalgam , and composite resin .
This study aim ed to compare the longevity of different conventional restorative material s placed in posterior primary teeth .
Conventional versus resin-modified glass-ionomer cement for Class II restorations in primary molars. A 3-year clinical study.
OBJECTIVE To compare the clinical performance of two glass-ionomer cements (GICs)for  Class II restorations in primary molars : a conventional cement ( Fuji II ) and a resin-modified cement ( Vitremer ) . DESIGN Split mouth and r and om assignment to the two material s were used for the majority of the molars . SAMPLE AND METHODS Forty consecutive 4 - 7-year-old children were included . One operator made 115 restorations : 53 with Vitremer and 62 with Fuji II . The restorations were evaluated clinical ly , radiographically and from colour photographs . RESULTS The cumulative success rate of the Vitremer restorations was 94 % and that of the Fuji II restorations 81 % . The difference is statistically significant . The risk of a failed restoration was more than five times higher with Fuji II than with Vitremer as the restorative material . Of the 13 unsuccessful restorations , seven had lost their retention , four had secondary caries , and two were fractured . CONCLUSIONS The resin-modified GIC offered advantages over the conventional GIC for restoring approximal caries in primary molars
Restorations of primary molars with conventional glass ionomer cement showed increased risk of failure than compomer , resin-modified glass ionomer cement , amalgam , and composite resin .
This study aim ed to compare the longevity of different conventional restorative material s placed in posterior primary teeth .