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

J Am Dent Assoc, Vol 140, No 2, 156-166. © 2009 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 Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by dos Santos, M. P. A. Articles by Maia, L. C. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by dos Santos, M. P. A. Articles by Maia, L. C. Related Collections Restoratives

JADA Continuing Education

24-Month Results

Purpose. The authors conducted a randomized clinical trial to evaluate the survival rate of esthetic restorations in Class I and Class II beveled preparations in primary molars 24 months after placement. The null hypothesis was that there is no difference among survival rates of the restorative materials used.

Methods. Forty-eight children (mean age, 5 years 9 months) received 141 restorations in beveled cavosurface margins in primary molars randomly assigned by lottery method: 46 received treatment with Vitremer Tri-Cure Glass Ionomer System (3M ESPE Dental Products, St. Paul, Minn.) (33 Class I and 13 Class II restorations), 51 received treatment with Freedom (SDI, Bayswater, Victoria, Australia) (36 Class I and 15 Class II restorations); 44 received treatment with TPH Spectrum (Dentsply, Petropolis, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil) (30 Class I and 14 Class II restorations). Two examiners whose technique had been calibrated (weight > 0.85) evaluated the restorations using modified U.S. Public Health Service criteria and Visible Plaque Index score at baseline and at 12, 18 and 24 months.

Results. After two years, the authors censored data for 17 restorations, considered 101 restorations to be clinically successful and deemed 23 restorations failed because of loss of marginal integrity, anatomical form discrepancies and secondary caries. For Class I and Class II restorations, the cumulative survival rates were higher than 80 percent and 55 percent, respectively, for all materials (life table, Gehan-Wilcoxon Test, P > .05; P > .05).

Conclusions. At the 24-month clinical recall, the authors found no differences among materials in Class I (P > .05) or Class II beveled preparations (P > .05) in primary molars, but all materials showed higher survival rates in Class I than in Class II restorations.

Key Words: Randomized controlled trial; dental materials; survival rate; molar; primary teeth; dental cavity preparation

Abbreviations: AC: Axial contour. • AF: Anatomical form. • DO: Disto-occlusal. • MA: Marginal adaptation. • MO: Mesio-occlusal. • MS: Marginal staining. • NA: Not available. • NS: Not significant. • O: Occlusal. • PC: Proximal contact. • PMRBC: Polyacid-modified resin-based composite. • RBC: Resin-based composite. • RCT: Randomized clinical trial. • RMGIC: Resin-modified glass ionomer cement. • SC: Secondary caries. • USPHS: U.S. Public Health Service.