Key Points
-
There is a need to study suitable alternatives to amalgam for use in primary teeth.
-
This was a comparative study to evaluate the performance of Dyract and amalgam for restoration of minimal proximal caries removed after administration of local analgesia inprimary teeth.
-
Evaluation of restorations for recurrent caries, wear, marginal integrity and surface texture showed that Dyract performed slightly better than amalgam, though significantly only for marginal integrity.
-
Dyract is a suitable alternative to amalgam both in general dental practice and a specialist environment when used for restoration of minimal proximal caries.
Abstract
Objectives To evaluate the clinical performance of a compomermaterial (Dyract®) in comparison with dental amalgam (Contour®) for management of proximal caries in primary molars in young children.
Setting General dental practice, and a dental hospital paediatric clinic.
Method This was a prospective study. A split mouth design was used with identical pairs of minimal Class II cavities, of matched tooth type inthe same dental arch, usually diagnosed with the use of bitewing radiographs. Seventy-eight pairs of restorations were completed ofwhich 60 pairs were available for evaluation after 24 months.
Results Comparable retention rates were observed for both Dyract and amalgam. The retention rates were high for both materials, with only four amalgam and two Dyract restorations failing over 24 months. Significantly better marginal integrity (P < 0.05) was observed for Dyract compared with amalgam with no significant differences between the two materials for recurrent caries, wear or surface texture.
Conclusions Dyract seemed to be a suitable alternative to amalgam for proximal restorations in primary molars of young children for use in general dental practice.
Similar content being viewed by others
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
References
Braff MH A comparison between stainless steel crowns and multi-surface amalgams in primary molars. J Dent Child 1975; 42: 474–478.
Levering NJ Messer LB The durability of primary molar restorations: I. Observations and predictions of success of amalgams. Paediatr Dent 1988; 10: 74–80.
Marks LAM Weerheim KL van Amerongen W E et al. Dyract versus Tytin class II restorations in primary molars: 36 month evaluation. Caries Res 1999; 33: 387–392.
Papathanasiou AG Curzon MEJ Fairpo CG The influence of restorative material on the survival rate of restorations in primary molars. Paediatr Dent 1994; 16: 282–288.
Randall RC Vrijhoef MA Wilson NH Efficacy of preformed metal crowns vs. amalgam restorations in primary molars: A systematic review. J Am Dent Assoc 2000; 131: 337–343.
Curzon MEJ Fairpo CG Heathcote D The use of paedodontic techniques by general dental practitioners and community dental officers – a survey in Yorkshire. J Paediatr Dent 1986; 2: 13–19.
Kilpatrick NM Durability of restorations in primary molars. J Dent 1993; 21: 67–73.
Holland IS Walls AWG Wallwork MA et al The longevity of amalgam restorations in deciduous molars. Br Dent J 1986; 161: 255–258.
Roberts JF Sheriff M The fate and survival of amalgam and preformed restorations placed in a specialist paediatric dental practice. Br Dent J 1990; 169: 237–244.
Office of Population Censuses and Surveys (OPCS). Dental disease among children in the United Kingdom in 1993 OPCS Monitor 1994 London: HMSO.
Krejci I Gebauer L Hausler T et al. Composite polymers – an amalgam substitute for deciduous tooth cavities? (German). Schhweizer Monatsschrift fur Zahnmedizin 1994; 104: 724–730.
Mass E Gordan M Fuks AB Assessment of compomer proximal restorations inprimary molars: A retrospective study. J Dent Child 1999; 66: 93–97.
Welbury RR Shaw AJ Murray JJ et al. Clinical evaluation of paired compomer andglass ionomer restorations in primary molars: final results after 42 months. Br Dent J 2000; 189: 93–97.
Fuks AB Araujo FB Osorio LB et al. Clinical and radiographic assessment of class IIesthetic restorations in primary molars. Paedr Dent 2000; 22: 479–485.
Frankl SH Shiere R Fogels HP Should the parent remain with the child in the dental operatory? J Dent Child 1962; 29: 150–163.
Cvar JF Ryge G Criterion for the clinical evaluation of dental restorative materials. USPHS Publication No 790-244 San Francisco 1971. United States Government Printing Office.
Hse KMY Wei SH Clinical evaluation of compomer in primary teeth: 1 year results. J Am Dent Assoc 1997; 128: 1088–1096.
Acknowledgements
This study was funded by the BDA Shirley Glasstone Hughes Memorial Prize.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Refereed paper
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Duggal, M., Toumba, K. & Sharma, N. Clinical performance of a compomer and amalgam for the interproximal restoration of primary molars: a 24-month evaluation. Br Dent J 193, 339–342 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.bdj.4801560
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.bdj.4801560
This article is cited by
-
Influence of dental care on children's oral health and wellbeing
British Dental Journal (2013)
-
Literature review: Restorations of class II cavities in the primary dentition with compomers
European Archives of Paediatric Dentistry (2010)
-
Durability of amalgam in the restoration of class II cavities in primary molars: a systematic review of the literature
European Archives of Paediatric Dentistry (2007)
-
A novel technique using preformed metal crowns for managing carious primary molars in general practice — A retrospective analysis
British Dental Journal (2006)
-
Alternative treatment strategies for carious primary teeth: An overview of the evidence
European Archives of Paediatric Dentistry (2006)
