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 .
Randomised trial of resin-based restorations in Class I and Class II beveled preparations in primary molars: 48-month results.
OBJECTIVE This r and omised clinical trial evaluated the survival rate of  resin-based restorations in Class I and Class II beveled preparations in primary molars , over 48 months . METHODS Forty-eight children received 141 restorations in beveled cavosurface margin preparations in primary molars r and omly assigned by a lottery method : 46 received treatment with Vitremer Tri-Cure Glass Ionomer System ( 33 Class I and 13 Class II restorations ) ; 51 received  treatment with Freedom ( 36 Class I and 15 Class II restorations ) ; 44 received treatment with TPH Spectrum ( 30 Class I and 14 Class II restorations ) . Two calibrated examiners ( weight kappa > or = 0.85 ) evaluated the restorations using the modified USPHS criteria and visible plaque index score at baseline and after 12 , 24 , 36 and 48 months . Cox regression with survival analysis and logistic regression evaluated the clinical performance of restorations . RESULTS After 48 months , 11 teeth had exfoliated , 16 restorations were dropouts , 83 restorations were clinical ly successful of which 26 had used Vitremer , 32 had used Freedom and 25 had used TPH Spectrum . Thirty-one restorations failed because of secondary caries , fractures and loss of retention . The cumulative survival was 73.9 % , 83.4 % and 79.6 % , respectively for Vitremer , Freedom and THP Spectrum with no differences among material s ( Log Rank Mantel-Cox , p>0.05 ) . However , the Class II cavity preparation reduced the survival of the restorations ( OR=5.1 ) for all material s evaluated ( p>0.05 ) . CONCLUSIONS The life expectancy of Vitremer , Freedom and THP Spectrum in Class I and Class II restorations could be comparable after 48 months
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 .