Objective: To evaluate the 12-month clinical performance of conventional (Compoglass F) and colored (Twinky Star) compomer restorative materials in class II restorations of primary molars. Materials and Methods: A total of 196 restorations were placed in 98 children aged between 5 and 10 years (mean age: 7.43 ± 1.31 years) who had bilateral matched pairs of carious posterior class II primary molars. A split-mouth design was used in which 2 materials (Compoglass F, Twinky Star) were randomly placed on contralateral sides by 3 dentists. At baseline, after 6 and after 12 months, the restorations were evaluated using modified US Public Health Service criteria for: secondary caries, marginal integrity, marginal discoloration, anatomic form and surface texture. The Alpha and Bravo scores were considered as clinical success. The data were subjected to statistical analysis by the Wilcoxon and McNemar tests (p < 0.05). The Kaplan-Meier survival method was applied to estimate survival percentages. Results: No significant difference was found among the groups at all recalls regarding marginal integrity, marginal discoloration, anatomic form, secondary caries and surface texture. The 12-month mean cumulative survival rate of Compoglass F was 95.7%, while in the Twinky Star group, the survival rate was 93% in class II restorations with no significant difference between the groups for either material. Conclusion: Both conventional and colored compomer materials are suitable restorative materials for primary teeth for at least 12 months. Colored compomers could also be a good alternative to tooth-colored compomers in the restoration of primary molars.

This content is only available via PDF.
Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer
Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.
You do not currently have access to this content.