CLINICAL EVALUATION OF CLASSII COMBINED AMALGAM-COMPOSITE RESTORATIONS IN PRIMARY MOLARS (PILOT STUDY)

Introduction The purpose of this study was to assess the influence of a thin layer of amalgam placed on gingival floor of class II composite restorations in primary molars. The clinical and radiographic findings and esthetic appearance of these restorations were also studied. Materials & Methods In this study 30 class II cavities were prepared in primary molars of 18 patients aged 6 to 8 years old (14 restorations in control group and 16 restorations in case group). In control group all cavities were filled with posterior composite resin incrementally after total etching and using Scotchbond MP as dentin bonding. In the study group, a layer of 1 mm thick amalgam was condensed on the gingival floor of the proximal box and then composite material was inserted. The restorations were evaluated at the base line , one week, one month and six months later and also bitewing radiograms were taken at the base line and six month later . Results Success rate of restorations regarding anatomical form, marginal discoloration, and color match was 100 in both groups. With regard to marginal adaptation after six months the rate was 84/6 in control group and 86/6 in study group. None of the patients complained of any pain or discomfort. No secondary caries and no radiographic pathological evidence were observed. Conclusion It is concluded that long term in-vivo and in-vitro studies should be carried out in order to prove the success rate of the class II combined amalgam- composite restorations.

[1]  Arzu Civelek,et al.  Polymerization shrinkage and microleakage in Class II cavities of various resin composites. , 2003, Operative dentistry.

[2]  S. Duarte,et al.  Evaluation of marginal microleakage in class II cavities: effect of microhybrid, flowable, and compactable resins. , 2003, Quintessence international.

[3]  C. Goracci,et al.  Sealing ability of packable resin composites in class II restorations. , 2003, The journal of adhesive dentistry.

[4]  M. Pétein,et al.  In vitro evaluation of the marginal seal of four restoration materials on deciduous molars. , 2003, Bulletin du Groupement international pour la recherche scientifique en stomatologie & odontologie.

[5]  L. Stockton,et al.  Microleakage of Class II composite restorations. , 2001, American journal of dentistry.

[6]  L. Breschi,et al.  Cusp fracture resistance in composite-amalgam combined restorations. , 1999, Journal of dentistry.

[7]  I. Mjör,et al.  Marginal failures of amalgam and composite restorations. , 1997, Journal of dentistry.

[8]  A. Chosack,et al.  Clinical evaluation of Class II combined amalgam-composite restorations in primary molars after 6 to 30 months. , 1996, ASDC journal of dentistry for children.

[9]  R. Bryant,et al.  A clinical evaluation of posterior composite resin restorations. , 1994, Australian dental journal.

[10]  F. Hadavi,et al.  Effect of different adhesive systems on microleakage at the amalgam/composite resin interface. , 1993, Operative dentistry.

[11]  P. Zwicker,et al.  The combined composite resin and amalgam restoration for posterior teeth: a clinical report. , 1992, Quintessence international.

[12]  Roda Rs A combined amalgam and composite resin restoration. , 1991 .

[13]  F. Hadavi,et al.  Shear bond strength of composite resin to amalgam: an experiment in vitro using different bonding systems. , 1991, Operative dentistry.

[14]  F. Hadavi,et al.  Assessing microleakage at the junction between amalgam and composite resin: a new method in vitro. , 1991, Operative dentistry.

[15]  R. D. Norman,et al.  A 5-year study comparing a posterior composite resin and an amalgam. , 1990, The Journal of prosthetic dentistry.

[16]  A. Chosack,et al.  An evaluation of marginal leakage of Class 2 combined amalgam-composite restorations. , 1990, Operative dentistry.

[17]  J. Roulet The problems associated with substituting composite resins for amalgam: a status report on posterior composites. , 1988, Journal of dentistry.