The cover story in the February issue of The Journal of the American Dental Association concludes that there is no difference among the survival rate of esthetic materials used in Class I and Class II beveled preparations in primary molars, but finds that such restorations fare better in Class I preparations.
The authors, led by pediatric dentist Márcia Pereira Alves dos Santos, a doctoral student at the Federal University of Rio de Janeiro School of Dentistry, conducted a randomized controlled trial in 48 healthy children between the ages of 3 and 9 years to evaluate the survival rate of esthetic restorations in Class I and Class II beveled preparations in primary molars 24 months after placement.
Each child received at least two of three types of restorative materials: resin-modified glass ionomer cement, polyacid-modified glass ionomer cement and resin-based composite. The study consisted of 141 total restorations, with 70 placed in first primary molars and 71 in second primary molars. Ninety-nine were Class I cavity preparations and 42 were Class II.
The researchers found that 101 restorations were considered clinically successful and 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.
The authors, led by pediatric dentist Márcia Pereira Alves dos Santos, a doctoral student at the Federal University of Rio de Janeiro School of Dentistry, conducted a randomized controlled trial in 48 healthy children between the ages of 3 and 9 years to evaluate the survival rate of esthetic restorations in Class I and Class II beveled preparations in primary molars 24 months after placement.
Each child received at least two of three types of restorative materials: resin-modified glass ionomer cement, polyacid-modified glass ionomer cement and resin-based composite. The study consisted of 141 total restorations, with 70 placed in first primary molars and 71 in second primary molars. Ninety-nine were Class I cavity preparations and 42 were Class II.
The researchers found that 101 restorations were considered clinically successful and 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.
