Comparison between Polyacid-Modified Composite Resin and Conventional Composite Resin used for Primary Molars Restoration

Al Nowaiser A

doi:10.15744/2454-3276.3.204

Abstract

To evaluate and compare the laboratory behavior of polyacid-modified composite resin with conventional composite resin.Ten recently extracted primary molars, were used in this study for the measurement of the shear bond strength. Occlusal enamel was ground, leaving a flat dentin surface, on which a cylindrical specimen of each of the two tested materials was applied and light-cured according to the manufacturer’s instructions.

Highlights

Despite the wide-spread use of amalgam, few studies have reported several problems associated with such restorations in the primary dentition [1]
No other significant differences were found between Dyract and Degufill H (P=0.08 for gingival microleakage at 6 months, P=0.36 for gingival microleakage at 12 months, P=0.32 for occlusal microleakage at one week, P=0.16 for occlusal microleakage at 6 months, and P=1.00 for occlusal microleakage at 12 months)
No statistically significant difference was found in compressive strength and microleakage between the 2 resin materials

Summary

Introduction

Despite the wide-spread use of amalgam, few studies have reported several problems associated with such restorations in the primary dentition [1]. An older study of 313 Class II amalgam failures in primary molars concluded that failure of amalgam, itself, was responsible for significantly more marginal defects than enamel breakdown. Those workers did not cite operator variables and manipulative factors as causes of failure, but suggested the need for a better restorative material or alternative methods for restoring primary teeth [2]. In a more recent study, the frequent failure of silver amalgam restorations has been widely discussed, it was reported that 88.7% of silver amalgam restorations in primary molars required replacement [3].

Methods

Results

Conclusion