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 .
Clinical performance of a compomer and amalgam for the interproximal restoration of primary molars: a 24-month evaluation
Objectives To evaluate the clinical performance of a compomer material ( Dyract ® ) in comparison with dental amalgam ( Contour ® ) for management of proximal caries in primary molars in young children . Setting General dental practice , and a dental hospital paediatric clinic . Method This was a prospect i ve study . A split mouth design was used with identical pairs of minimal Class II cavities , of matched tooth type inthe same dental arch , usually diagnosed with the use of bitewing radiographs . Seventy-eight pairs of restorations were completed ofwhich 60 pairs were available for evaluation after 24 months . Results Comparable retention rates were observed for both Dyract and amalgam . The retention rates were high for both material s , with only four amalgam and two Dyract restorations failing over 24 months . Significantly better marginal integrity ( P < 0.05 ) was observed for Dyract compared with amalgam with no significant differences between the two material s for recurrent caries , wear or surface texture . Conclusions Dyract seemed to be a suitable alternative to amalgam for proximal restorations in primary molars of young children for use in general dental practice
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 .