Related Experiment Videos
Preventive resin restorations vs. amalgam restorations: a three-year clinical study
S Cloyd1, R O Gilpatrick, D Moore
1Department of General Dentistry, U.T., Memphis, USA.
The Journal of the Tennessee Dental Association
|April 1, 1998
Summary
Preventive resin restorations (PRRs) showed comparable performance to amalgam restorations over three years. While early sealant retention issues occurred with PRRs, neither restoration type failed by the three-year mark.
Area of Science:
- Restorative Dentistry
- Dental Materials Science
Background:
- Class I cavities are common, requiring durable restorations.
- Amalgam has been a standard, but concerns about aesthetics and mercury exist.
- Preventive resin restorations (PRRs) offer a less invasive alternative.
Purpose of the Study:
- To compare the three-year clinical performance of Class I amalgam restorations with PRRs.
- To evaluate factors such as anatomic form, marginal adaptation, and recurrent caries.
Main Methods:
- A three-year clinical study involving 38 patients.
- Placement of 74 PRRs (P-50 composite resin and White Sealant) and 52 amalgam restorations.
- Evaluation using the USPHS/Ryge system at 6 months, 1, 2, and 3 years.
Main Results:
- Two PRR failures at 6 months and four at 1 year, attributed to sealant retention issues.
- No PRR failures observed at 2 or 3 years.
- Zero amalgam restoration failures throughout the three-year study period.
Conclusions:
- PRRs demonstrate comparable long-term clinical performance to amalgam restorations for Class I cavities.
- Early PRR failures related to sealant retention can be managed and do not preclude long-term success.
- Both restorative materials show high durability in posterior teeth over three years.