engleski

Clinical analysis of composite restorations in primary molars: 2 year follow up

Aim. the aim of this study was to evaluate clinical performance of amalgam and two composite materials. Ariston and Pertac II were used for class II restorations on primary molars. Methods. 124 Class II cavities in 60 patients were analysed. There were 29 amalgam restorations (Amalcap Plus, Vivadent/Ivoclar), 50 Ariston restorations (Vivadent/Ivoclar) and 45 teeth restored with Pertac II (3M Espe). Each composite material was placed with use of adhesive system following manufacturers instructions. Restorations were evaluated immediately following placement and in intervals of 6 months, 1 and 2 years using modified USPHS criteria (Ryge and Cvar). Results. After two years of clinical service changes in color of restorations were rated A in 86% for Ariston and 97% for Hytac. Marginal adaptation for amalgam was rated A in 62.07%, while Ariston showed rate A in 80%. Pertac was rated A in 62.22%. Secondary caries was not observed in 96.55% amalgam restorations (rate A), whileAriston had 88% restorations with no secondary caries (rate A). Secondary caries lesions were observed in 24.4% of Pertac II restorations (rate B). For statistical analysis Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney tests were applied to test the difference between groups. Significant difference was found only for secondary caries lesions between Pertac II and tested materials. Conclusion. It can be concluded that both evaluated composite materials could be used as amalgam alternatives in clinical practice. Further clinical evaluations are required to obtain more reliable results.

dental materials

nije evidentirano