Clinical Evaluation of Restorative Materials in Primary Teeth Class II Lesions

Abstract

While the functional failure was the most important factor in restorative material failure, RMGIC was the most successful material in terms of biological evaluation criterion and GCR had the longest survival rate.

Composite Resin or Compomer for the Restoration of Primary Molars: A Systematic Review.

“…After screening of titles and abstracts, 9 articles were suggested for full text reading (12)(13)(14)(15)(16)(17)(18)(19)(20). Based on full texts reading, 4 articles (12-15) were excluded with reasons (Table 1).…”

“…no additional articles were revealed as a result of hand searching of the reference lists. Consequently, 5 studies were identified eligible for inclusion in this systematic review (16)(17)(18)(19)(20). Of the 5 articles, 2 of which (17,18) described the same trial with different follow-up time.…”

“…After combining these studies, 4 clinical studies remained. Data extraction:-Study design, evaluation periods, and location of experiments:-All 4 studies were split mouth randomized control trials, with evaluation periods ranging from 18 months (20), 24 months (16,17,19), to 48 months (18), two experiments were conducted in brazil (16)(17)(18), and two in turkey (19,20).…”

“…Two studies were conducted exclusively on class II cavities (19,20), and 2 studies were conducted on class I and class II cavities (16)(17)(18). (16); for the marginal adaptation outcome, after 24 months, 41% of the composite group; developed crevice to be caught by a blunt explorer, while 31% and 27% of the 2 compomer groups had similar crevices.…”

“…the authors concluded that the clinical performance of compomer is superior to resin composite Quality assessment:-Was based on the estimated potential risk of bias (Table:3). Three studies showed unclear risk of bias (16,19,20), and one study showed high risk of bias (17,18).…”