Clinical Success Rate of Compomer and Amalgam Class II Restorations in First Primary Molars: A Two-year Study

Two-year clinical and radiographic evaluation of ACTIVA BioACTIVE versus Compomer (Dyract® eXtra) in the restoration of class-2 cavities of primary molars: a non-inferior split-mouth randomised clinical trial

OBJECTIVES

The trial aimed to compare the clinical performance and radiographic success of ACTIVA BioACTIVE versus Compomer in restoring class-II cavities of primary molars.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A non-inferior split-mouth design was considered. A pre-calculated sample size of 96 molars (48 per group) with class-2 cavities of twenty-one children whose ages ranged from 5 to 10 years were randomly included in the trial. Pre-operative Plaque Index (PI), DMFT/dmft scores and the time required to fill the cavity were recorded. Over 24 months, the teeth were clinically evaluated every six months and radiographically every 12 months by two calibrated and blinded evaluators using the United States public health service (USPHS)-Ryge criteria. The two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference in success rate was considered to assess non-inferiority, and the margin was set at -18%. The linear mixed model and Firth's logistic regression model were used for data analysis (P < 0.05).

RESULTS

After 24 months, 86 teeth (43 per group) were evaluated. The mean PI score was 1.1(± 0.9), while DMFT/dmft was 0.35 (± 0.74) and 6.55 (± 2.25) respectively. The clinical and radiographic success rate of Dyract vs. ACTIVA was 95.3% and 88.3% vs. 93% and 86%, respectively. The two-sided 95% CI for the difference in success rate (-2.3%) was - 3.2 to 1.3% and didn't reach the predetermined margin of -18% which had been anticipated as the non-inferiority margin. Clinically, ACTIVA had a significantly better colour match (P = 0.002) but worse marginal discolouration (P = 0.0143). There were no significant differences regarding other clinical or radiographic criteria (P > 0.05). ACTIVA took significantly less placement time than Dyract, with a mean difference of 2.37 (± 0.63) minutes (P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

The performance of ACTIVA was not inferior to Dyract and both materials had a comparable high clinical and radiographic performance in children with high-caries experience. ACTIVA had a significantly better colour match but more marginal discolouration. It took significantly less time to be placed in the oral cavity.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov on 4 May 2018 (#NCT03516838).

One-year clinical evaluation of two high-viscosity glass-ionomer cements in class II restorations of primary molars

BACKGROUND

Little information exists on the clinical performance of restorative materials on primary teeth of preschool children. This study aimed to evaluate clinical performance of compomer, glass-hybrid-added high-viscosity glass-ionomer cement and zinc-added high-viscosity glass-ionomer cement materials in class ΙΙ restorations of primary molars.

METHODS

The study included 251 teeth of 57 patients aged 4-7 years with proximal caries in primary molars. The teeth were divided into three groups, and each restorative material was randomly distributed. Dyract XP, Equia Forte and ChemFil Rock materials were placed after cavity preparation and clinically evaluated at 3, 6, 9 and 12 months using modified United States Public Health Service criteria. Statistical analyses were performed using chi-square and z tests.

RESULTS

At the end of 12 months, a total of three restorations in Dyract XP group, 22 in Equia Forte group and 11 in ChemFil Rock group failed in retention criteria. No statistically significant difference existed between retention, colour match and surface texture criteria of all groups at 3 and 6 months, but a statistically significant difference was found at 12 months (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

For class ΙΙ restorations of primary molars, the success of compomer material was superior to high-viscosity glass-ionomer materials.