OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the clinical durability of flowable resin composite and resin-modified glass ionomer cement when used as class II restoratives in primary molars. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A total of 190 restorations were placed in 61 children, age in the range of 5-11 years. The restoratives, Tetric Flow, in combination with the adhesives, Excite or Prompt-L-Pop and Vitremer, were used in class II cavities in primary molars. An intra-individual study design was used and the restorations were evaluated by modified USPHS criteria over a 2-year period. RESULTS: 146 of the restorations could be evaluated at 2 years. The cumulative failure rate was 10.6% for Vitremer and 13.6% for Tetric Flow. No statistically significant differences were found in failure rates between different materials or between bonding systems. The main cause of failure for Tetric Flow was secondary caries and for Vitremer wear and dissolution. CONCLUSIONS: Vitremer and Tetric Flow showed no significant difference concerning clinical durability at 2 years when used as class II restoratives in primary molars. Both materials demonstrated acceptable clinical results.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the clinical durability of flowable resin composite and resin-modified glass ionomer cement when used as class II restoratives in primary molars. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A total of 190 restorations were placed in 61 children, age in the range of 5-11 years. The restoratives, Tetric Flow, in combination with the adhesives, Excite or Prompt-L-Pop and Vitremer, were used in class II cavities in primary molars. An intra-individual study design was used and the restorations were evaluated by modified USPHS criteria over a 2-year period. RESULTS: 146 of the restorations could be evaluated at 2 years. The cumulative failure rate was 10.6% for Vitremer and 13.6% for Tetric Flow. No statistically significant differences were found in failure rates between different materials or between bonding systems. The main cause of failure for Tetric Flow was secondary caries and for Vitremer wear and dissolution. CONCLUSIONS: Vitremer and Tetric Flow showed no significant difference concerning clinical durability at 2 years when used as class II restoratives in primary molars. Both materials demonstrated acceptable clinical results.