Logo-joddd
J Dent Res Dent Clin Dent Prospects. 2015;9(2): 92-95.
doi: 10.15171/joddd.2015.018
PMID: 26236434
PMCID: PMC4517311
  Abstract View: 832
  PDF Download: 474

Original Research

Clinical Success Rate of Compomer and Amalgam Class II Restorations in First Primary Molars: A Two-year Study

Faezeh Ghaderi 1*, Ali Mardani 2

1 Associate Professor, Department of Pediatrics dentistry, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Shiraz, Iran
2 Associate Professor, Department of Pediatrics dentistry, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Shiraz, Iran
*Corresponding Author: Email: ghaderi_fa@sums.ac.ir

Abstract

Background and aims. The majority of failures in Class II amalgam restorations occur in the first primary molar teeth; in addition, use of compomer instead of amalgam for primary molar teeth restorations is a matter of concern. The aim ofthe present study was to compare the success rate of Class II compomer and amalgam restorations in the first primary molars.Materials and methods. A total of 17 amalgams and 17 compomer restorations were placed in 17 children based on a split-mouth design. Restorations were assessed at 12- and 24-month intervals for marginal integrity, the anatomic form and recurrent caries. Data were analyzed with SPSS 11. Chi-squared test was applied for the analysis. Statistical significance was set at P<0.05.Results. A total 34 restorations of 28 restorations (14 pairs) of the total restorations still survived after 24 months. Compomerrestorations showed significantly better results in marginal integrity. Recurrent caries was significantly lower incompomer restorations compared to amalgam restorations. Cumulative success rate at 24-month interval was significantlyhigher in compomer restorations compared to amalgam restorations. There was no statistically significant difference inanatomic form between the two materials.Conclusion. Compomer appears to be a suitable alternative to amalgam for Class II restorations in the first primary mo-lars.
First Name
Last Name
Email Address
Comments
Security code


Abstract View: 833

Your browser does not support the canvas element.


PDF Download: 474

Your browser does not support the canvas element.

Submitted: 21 Jun 2015
EndNote EndNote

(Enw Format - Win & Mac)

BibTeX BibTeX

(Bib Format - Win & Mac)

Bookends Bookends

(Ris Format - Mac only)

EasyBib EasyBib

(Ris Format - Win & Mac)

Medlars Medlars

(Txt Format - Win & Mac)

Mendeley Web Mendeley Web
Mendeley Mendeley

(Ris Format - Win & Mac)

Papers Papers

(Ris Format - Win & Mac)

ProCite ProCite

(Ris Format - Win & Mac)

Reference Manager Reference Manager

(Ris Format - Win only)

Refworks Refworks

(Refworks Format - Win & Mac)

Zotero Zotero

(Ris Format - Firefox Plugin)