M S Duggal1, K J Toumba, N K Sharma. 1. Child Dental Health, Child DentalHealth, Leeds Dental Institute, UK. m.s.duggal@leeds.ac.uk
Abstract
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 prospective study. A split mouth design was used with identical pairs of minimal Class II cavities, of matched tooth type in the same dental arch, usually diagnosed with the use of bitewing radiographs. Seventy-eight pairs of restorations were completed of which 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 materials, 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 materials 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.
RCT Entities:
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 prospective study. A split mouth design was used with identical pairs of minimal Class II cavities, of matched tooth type in the same dental arch, usually diagnosed with the use of bitewing radiographs. Seventy-eight pairs of restorations were completed of which 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 materials, 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 materials 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.
Authors: Shivayogi M Hugar; Divyata Kohli; Chandrashekhar M Badakar; Supriya S Vyavahare; Parin P Shah; Niraj S Gokhale; Punit M Patel; Madhura V Mundada Journal: J Clin Diagn Res Date: 2017-06-01