HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

J Am Dent Assoc, Vol 138, No 6, 763-772. © 2007 American Dental Association

This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Soncini, J. A. Articles by Hayes, C. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Soncini, J. A. Articles by Hayes, C. Related Collections Restoratives

Findings From the New England Children’s Amalgam Trial

Background. Limited information is available from randomized clinical trials comparing the longevity of amalgam and resin-based compomer/composite restorations. The authors compared replacement rates of these types of restorations in posterior teeth during the five-year follow-up of the New England Children’s Amalgam Trial.

Methods. The authors randomized children aged 6 to 10 years who had two or more posterior occlusal carious lesions into groups that received amalgam (n = 267) or compomer (primary teeth)/composite (permanent teeth) (n = 267) restorations and followed them up semiannually. They compared the longevity of restorations placed on all posterior surfaces using random effects survival analysis.

Results. The average ± standard deviation follow-up was 2.8 ± 1.4 years for primary tooth restorations and 3.4 ± 1.9 years for permanent tooth restorations. In primary teeth, the replacement rate was 5.8 percent of compomers versus 4.0 percent of amalgams (P = .10), with 3.0 percent versus 0.5 percent (P = .002), respectively, due to recurrent caries. In permanent teeth, the replacement rate was 14.9 percent of composites versus 10.8 percent of amalgams (P = .45), and the repair rate was 2.8 percent of composites versus 0.4 percent of amalgams (P = .02).

Conclusion. Although the overall difference in longevity was not statistically significant, compomer was replaced significantly more frequently owing to recurrent caries, and composite restorations required seven times as many repairs as did amalgam restorations.

Clinical Implications. Compomer/composite restorations on posterior tooth surfaces in children may require replacement or repair at higher rates than amalgam restorations, even within five years of placement.

Key Words: Dental amalgam; resin-based composites; compomers; dentition, primary; dentition, permanent; clinical trial; longevity

Abbreviations: NECAT: New England Children’s Amalgam Trial

This article has been cited by other articles:

				J.L. Drummond Degradation, Fatigue, and Failure of Resin Dental Composite Materials J. Dent. Res., August 1, 2008; 87(8): 710 - 719. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]