Two-year clinical evaluation of a proprietary composite resin for the restoration of primary posterior teeth.

The objective of this study was to compare the clinical performance of a stror.~.tium glass-filled composite resin (Profile ®) and an amalgam alloy (Ease®) in primary molars. A total of 111 restorations (61 composite resin, 50 amalgam) were placed in 37 children. The PHS Clinical Rating Syste~n was used to evaluate color match, cavosurface marginal discoloration, anatomic form, marginal adaptation, and caries. Sixty per cent of the original composite resin and amalgam restorations were available for examination after 24 months. Ninety-two per cent of the resin restorations matched the surrounding tooth structure and no evidence of cavosurface marginal discoloration was observed in 81% at the conclusion of the study. No loss of anatomic form was seen in 83% of the resins or 87% of the amalgams. Excellent marginal adaptation was found in 92% of the resin restorations as compared to 83% of the amalgams. Only one restoration of each material experienced associated recurrent caries. Over a 24-month observation period, there was no significant difference between the composite resin Profile ® and the amalgam alloy Ease in regard to their clinical performance as restorative materials for primary molars. An esthetic alternative to amalgam as a restorative material for posterior teeth has been sought for many years. In 1965 the successful introduction of composite resins for the restoration of anterior teeth initially appeared ~:o hold promise for their use in posterior teeth as well. 1,2 However, subsequent longterm observations revealed a high rate of occlusal wear, marginal leakage, and an increase in recurrent cares. 3,4 Nevertheless, interest in the use of composite resins in the primary den.tition continues to be intense for several reasons. Restorations in primary molars do not require as long a clinical life, and primary enamel wears at a rate which is similar to that of composite resin. In addition, amalgam restorations have been reported to fail much earlier in primary molars than in permanent posterior teeth (although the newer alloys have shown marked improvement), s,6 Recently, several investigators have evaluated the use of composite resin in primary molars. 6,7 Their findings have been contradictory and inconclusive. The differences observed probably were due to the physical properties of the particular composite resin being evaluated. The objective of this study was to compare the clinical performance of a strontium glass-filled proprietary composite resin ~ and a proprietary amalgam alloy b