Key Points
-
Dyract Compomer had a higher mean survival time than Chemfil Superior in occlusal and approximal cavities in primary molar teeth after 42 months
-
Dyract performed significantly better than Chemfil for anatomical form, marginal integrity, cavosurface discolouration, recurrent caries, maintenance of interproximal contact, surface texture, and overall failure.
Abstract
Objectives
To undertake a clinical trial comparing the efficiency of a compomer restoration with a glass ionomer restoration in the management of caries in primary molar teeth.
Design
Subjects were admitted to the trial if they required at least one pair of restorations in primary molar teeth.
Setting
Department of Child Dental Health, Newcastle Dental Hospital and School.
Subject
Twenty nine children, aged 4–9 years, had 56 pairs of restorations placed between January 1995 and November 1997.
Method
The durability of the restorations was assessed during a 42-month follow-up period using modified United States Public Health Service criteria. Survival analysis and the McNemar paired test were used to compare the performance of the two restorative materials.
Results
The compomer restorations had a higher mean survival time (42 months, SE 1.40) compared with 37 months (SE 1.90) for the glass ionomer restorations and this was significant at the 5% level. The compomer also performed significantly better in terms of anatomical form, marginal integrity, cavo surface discoloration and maintenance of interproximal contact.
Conclusions
The present trial demonstrated that Dyract compomer performed significantly better than Chemfil Superior a glass ionomer cement for all modified United States Public Health Service criteria over a period of 42 months.
Log in or create a free account to read this content
Gain free access to this article, as well as selected content from this journal and more on nature.com
or
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Watson, T. Compomer versus glass ionomer restorations: which material performs better in primary molars?. Br Dent J 189, 85 (2000). https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.bdj.4800690
Published:
Issue date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.bdj.4800690