PURPOSE: This study was performed to compare the clinical performance between the compomer F2000 and amalgam Dispersalloy in Class II restorations in primary molars over a 2-year period. METHODS: Seventy-five amalgam and 75 compomer restorations were placed in 75 children based on a split-mouth design. The restorations were evaluated after 1 week and after 6, 12, 18, and 24 months of oral function. The evaluation consisted of a clinical assessment according to modified Ryge criteria, a radiographic examination using bite-wing radiographs, and an observation of epoxy casts under scanning electron microscopy. RESULTS: The results showed statistically significant differences in the marginal adaptation and anatomic form between amalgam and compomer restorations. A higher number of compomer restorations were rated as Bravo, while a higher number of amalgam restorations were rated as Alpha at 24 months. Significant differences in the failure of the restoration and development of secondary caries were not found between the materials. CONCLUSIONS: The use of compomer F2000 in Class II resorations in primary molars, although it presents a significantly higher number of restorations rated as Bravo regarding the marginal adaptation and anatomic form vs the amalgam, does not increase the risks of developing secondary caries and failure of the restoration over a period of 2 years.
PURPOSE: This study was performed to compare the clinical performance between the compomer F2000 and amalgam Dispersalloy in Class II restorations in primary molars over a 2-year period. METHODS: Seventy-five amalgam and 75 compomer restorations were placed in 75 children based on a split-mouth design. The restorations were evaluated after 1 week and after 6, 12, 18, and 24 months of oral function. The evaluation consisted of a clinical assessment according to modified Ryge criteria, a radiographic examination using bite-wing radiographs, and an observation of epoxy casts under scanning electron microscopy. RESULTS: The results showed statistically significant differences in the marginal adaptation and anatomic form between amalgam and compomer restorations. A higher number of compomer restorations were rated as Bravo, while a higher number of amalgam restorations were rated as Alpha at 24 months. Significant differences in the failure of the restoration and development of secondary caries were not found between the materials. CONCLUSIONS: The use of compomer F2000 in Class II resorations in primary molars, although it presents a significantly higher number of restorations rated as Bravo regarding the marginal adaptation and anatomic form vs the amalgam, does not increase the risks of developing secondary caries and failure of the restoration over a period of 2 years.
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