DentistryDental Materials ScienceRestorative DentistryAesthetic Dental MaterialsDental MaterialsPreventive Dental MaterialsAmalgam RestorationsComposite Resin RestorationsComposite ResinsDental CompositesGlass Ionomer Cement RestorationsGlass Ionomer CementsAmalgam Class Ii RestorationsGlass Ionomer CompositesResin Composite PlacementRestorations
Amalgam (ANA 2000), composite resin (Occlusin), and glass ionomer cement (ChemFil) were compared in conventional Class II restorations in second primary molars. Twenty-five restorations of each material were placed by two dentists in 50 patients. The restorations were evaluated during a three year period using the USPHS criteria. Great differences could be found between the materials. The failure rate (USPHS ratings Charlie) was after three years 8 per cent for the amalgam, 16 per cent for the composite resin and 60 per cent for the glass ionomer cement restorations.
1