A B Fuks1, F B Araujo, L B Osorio, P E Hadani, A S Pinto. 1. Department of Pediatric Dentistry, Hebrew University, Hadassah School of Dental Medicine, Jerusalem, Israel. fuks@cc.huji.ac.il
Abstract
PURPOSE: The aim of the study was to access the clinical performance of two esthetic materials (Vitremer and Z100 + Scotchbond Multipurpose) when used as Class II restorations in primary molars, and compare them to amalgam controls. METHODS: A total of 102 restorations were placed in primary molars of 29 schoolchildren; 40 were of Vitremer, 38 of Z100 + Scotchbond Multipurpose, and 24 of amalgam (Dispersalloy). The restorations were evaluated clinically at baseline and after 6, 12, 18, 24 months, or until tooth exfoliation or patient drop-out, following the modified Cvar and Ryge criteria. Radiographs were taken at yearly intervals, and the radiograph of the last examination available was assessed and scored. RESULTS: The majority of the restorations examined clinically up to 18 months was good (Alpha according to Cvar and Ryge), and no statistically significant differences between the groups was observed. However, at the 19-24 months evaluation, Z100 rated better than Vitremer for surface appearance and color match. The prevalence of radiolucent defects at the cervical margin for the Z100 (47%) was significantly higher than for amalgam (11%) restorations (P = 0.002) and for Vitremer (13%) restorations (P = 0.008). CONCLUSION: The three materials evaluated (Vitremer, Z100 and Dispersalloy) presented satisfactory clinical performance during the time evaluated (approximately 2 years). Approximately half of the composite resin restorations presented radiographic defects that might require replacement at a later date. In contrast, glass ionomer and amalgam restorations presented significantly less radiographic defects at the time of the final examination. This study suggests that composite resins are indicated for classII restorations in primary molars that are expected to exfoliate within two years.
PURPOSE: The aim of the study was to access the clinical performance of two esthetic materials (Vitremer and Z100 + Scotchbond Multipurpose) when used as Class II restorations in primary molars, and compare them to amalgam controls. METHODS: A total of 102 restorations were placed in primary molars of 29 schoolchildren; 40 were of Vitremer, 38 of Z100 + Scotchbond Multipurpose, and 24 of amalgam (Dispersalloy). The restorations were evaluated clinically at baseline and after 6, 12, 18, 24 months, or until tooth exfoliation or patient drop-out, following the modified Cvar and Ryge criteria. Radiographs were taken at yearly intervals, and the radiograph of the last examination available was assessed and scored. RESULTS: The majority of the restorations examined clinically up to 18 months was good (Alpha according to Cvar and Ryge), and no statistically significant differences between the groups was observed. However, at the 19-24 months evaluation, Z100 rated better than Vitremer for surface appearance and color match. The prevalence of radiolucent defects at the cervical margin for the Z100 (47%) was significantly higher than for amalgam (11%) restorations (P = 0.002) and for Vitremer (13%) restorations (P = 0.008). CONCLUSION: The three materials evaluated (Vitremer, Z100 and Dispersalloy) presented satisfactory clinical performance during the time evaluated (approximately 2 years). Approximately half of the composite resin restorations presented radiographic defects that might require replacement at a later date. In contrast, glass ionomer and amalgam restorations presented significantly less radiographic defects at the time of the final examination. This study suggests that composite resins are indicated for classII restorations in primary molars that are expected to exfoliate within two years.