|
pubmed:abstractText |
Amalgam (ANA 2000), composite resin (Occlusin), and glass ionomer cement (ChemFil) were compared in conventional Class II restorations in second primary molars. Twenty-five restorations of each material were placed by two dentists in 50 patients. The restorations were evaluated during a three year period using the USPHS criteria. Great differences could be found between the materials. The failure rate (USPHS ratings Charlie) was after three years 8 per cent for the amalgam, 16 per cent for the composite resin and 60 per cent for the glass ionomer cement restorations.
|
