Clinical evaluation of composite and compomer restorations in primary teeth: 24-month results

Pascon, Fernanda Miori; Kantovitz, Kamila Rosamilia; Caldo-Teixeira, Angela Scarparo; Borges, Ana Flávia Sanches; Silva, Tatiana Nunes; Puppin-Rontani, Regina Maria; Garcia-Godoy, Franklin

doi:10.1016/j.jdent.2005.08.003

« Previous Next »Journal of Dentistry
Volume 34, Issue 6 , Pages 381-388, July 2006

Clinical evaluation of composite and compomer restorations in primary teeth: 24-month results

Fernanda Miori Pascon
- Pediatric Dentistry Piracicaba Dental School, University of Campinas, Piracicaba, São Paulo, Brazil
Kamila Rosamilia Kantovitz
- Pediatric Dentistry Piracicaba Dental School, University of Campinas, Piracicaba, São Paulo, Brazil
Angela Scarparo Caldo-Teixeira
- Pediatric Dentistry, Federal University of Santa Catarina, Florianópolis, Santa Catarina, Brazil
Ana Flávia Sanches Borges
- Dental Material, Piracicaba Dental School, University of Campinas, Piracicaba, São Paulo, Brazil
Tatiana Nunes Silva
- DDS, Brazil
Regina Maria Puppin-Rontani
- Pediatric Dentistry, Piracicaba Dental School, University of Campinas, Piracicaba, Avenida Limeira, 901-Caixa Postal 52, 13414-900 Piracicaba, São Paulo, Brazil
- Corresponding author. Tel.: +55 19 3412 5286; fax: +55 19 3412 5218.
Franklin Garcia-Godoy
- Clinical Research Center, College of Dental Medicine, Nova Southeastern University, Fort Lauderdale, FL, USA

Received 16 June 2005; received in revised form 23 August 2005; accepted 30 August 2005.

Summary

Purpose

This split-mouth, blind study evaluated the clinical performance of Dyract AP, F2000, and Heliomolar placed in primary molars of 30 children (mean age, 6 years and 2 months).

Materials and methods

From a total of 79 restorations accomplished, 27 were built with Heliomolar (18 Class I, and 9 Class II), 30 were with F2000 (21 Class I and 9 Class II), and 22 were built with Dyract AP (14 Class I and 8 Class II). All of teeth restored had primary caries lesions. At 6, 12, 18 and 24 months, 60 restorations (75%) were evaluated using USPHS criteria for: color match (CM), marginal adaptation (MA), marginal discoloration (MD), anatomic form (AF) and secondary caries (SC) by three calibrated operators. The Alpha+Bravo score percentage was considered as clinical success. The data were subjected to statistical analysis by Mann–Whitney and Kruskal–Wallis tests (p<0.05).

Results

Heliomolar showed the smallest success clinical at 12 months for marginal adaptation and secondary caries, and at 18 months for marginal discoloration. Regarding color match and anatomic form, no significant differences were found among the groups at each evaluation period. When materials were compared, Heliomolar did not show a significant difference among the evaluated periods for any criteria, remaining with the lowest scores. Significant differences were observed at 12 months for F2000 (marginal adaptation), and at 24 months for Dyract AP (marginal discoloration and secondary caries) and for F2000 (color match and marginal discoloration).

Conclusions

It was concluded that Dyract AP and F2000 showed the best clinical performance over 24 month-evaluations for marginal discoloration and secondary caries, and color match and marginal adaptation, respectively. The use of the resin composite Heliomolar in Class I/II restorations in primary molars should be carefully considered.

Keywords: Class I/II restorations, Composite resin, PMCR, Primary teeth, Posterior teeth, Compomers