OBJECTIVES: To undertake a clinical trial comparing the efficiency of a compomer restoration with a glass ionomer restoration in the management of caries in primary molar teeth. DESIGN:Subjects were admitted to the trial if they required at least one pair of restorations in primary molar teeth. SETTING: Department of Child Dental Health, Newcastle Dental Hospital and School. SUBJECT: Twenty nine children, aged 4-9 years, had 56 pairs of restorations placed between January 1995 and November 1997. METHOD: The durability of the restorations was assessed during a 42-month follow-up period using modified United States Public Health Service criteria. Survival analysis and the McNemar paired test were used to compare the performance of the two restorative materials. RESULTS: The compomer restorations had a higher mean survival time (42 months, SE 1.40) compared with 37 months (SE 1.90) for the glass ionomer restorations and this was significant at the 5% level. The compomer also performed significantly better in terms of anatomical form, marginal integrity, cavo surface discoloration and maintenance of interproximal contact. CONCLUSIONS: The present trial demonstrated that Dyract compomer performed significantly better than Chemfil Superior a glass ionomer cement for all modified United States Public Health Service criteria over a period of 42 months.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVES: To undertake a clinical trial comparing the efficiency of a compomer restoration with a glass ionomer restoration in the management of caries in primary molar teeth. DESIGN: Subjects were admitted to the trial if they required at least one pair of restorations in primary molar teeth. SETTING: Department of Child Dental Health, Newcastle Dental Hospital and School. SUBJECT: Twenty nine children, aged 4-9 years, had 56 pairs of restorations placed between January 1995 and November 1997. METHOD: The durability of the restorations was assessed during a 42-month follow-up period using modified United States Public Health Service criteria. Survival analysis and the McNemar paired test were used to compare the performance of the two restorative materials. RESULTS: The compomer restorations had a higher mean survival time (42 months, SE 1.40) compared with 37 months (SE 1.90) for the glass ionomer restorations and this was significant at the 5% level. The compomer also performed significantly better in terms of anatomical form, marginal integrity, cavo surface discoloration and maintenance of interproximal contact. CONCLUSIONS: The present trial demonstrated that Dyract compomer performed significantly better than Chemfil Superior a glass ionomer cement for all modified United States Public Health Service criteria over a period of 42 months.