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 .
Flowable resin composite as a class II restorative in primary molars: A two-year clinical evaluation
Objective . To evaluate the clinical durability of flowable resin composite and resin-modified glass ionomer cement when used as class II restoratives in primary molars . Material and Methods . A total of 190 restorations were placed in 61 children , age in the range of 5–11 years . The restoratives , Tetric Flow , in combination with the adhesives , Excite or Prompt-L-Pop and Vitremer , were used in class II cavities in primary molars . An intra-individual study design was used and the restorations were evaluated by modified USPHS criteria over a 2-year period . Results . 146 of the restorations could be evaluated at 2 years . The cumulative failure rate was 10.6 % for Vitremer and 13.6 % for Tetric Flow . No statistically significant differences were found in failure rates between different material s or between bonding systems . The main cause of failure for Tetric Flow was secondary caries and for  Vitremer wear and dissolution . Conclusions . Vitremer and Tetric Flow showed no significant difference concerning clinical durability at 2 years when used as class II restoratives in primary molars . Both material s demonstrated acceptable clinical results
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 .