Preventive Resin Restoration Versus Preventive Amalgam Restoration in Permanent molars Using the Atraumatic Restorative Treatment Technique. A Comparative Study
Ghada Mohamed Mahmoud;
Abstract
This study was conducted on 20 patients ranging in age from 7 to 10 years , to evaluate and compare the effectiveness of Preventive Amalgam Restorations and Preventive Resin Restorations using the ART approach.
Each patient had two contralateral lower first permanent molars indicated for preventive restorations. Each patient had one molar restored with PAR and the contralateral one restored with PRR. All cavities were prepared using hand instruments.
The restorations were evaluated for retention,marginal integrity and clinical effectiveness after 1,3 and 6 monthes.
The reinforced resin sealant used with PRR showed 95% retention after 1 and 3 months, this dropped to 85% at the end of 6 months. Retention of bonded amalgam sealant used with PAR was 85% after 1 and 3 months and 80% at the end of 6 months. However, there was no significant difference between the two groups.
The reinforced resin sealant showed 75% Alfa ratings for marginal integrity after
6 months, which was the same value recorded for bonded amalgam sealant after the same period of time,with no significant difference.
Recurrent caries was not observed in any of the restored teeth,throughout the study period.
Laboratory .study was conducted on 48 extracted caries-free human third molars. Twenty teeth were used for shear bond strength testing and 28 teeth were used for marginal microleakage evaluation.
The mean shear bond value for bonded amalgam before thermocycling was 8.6
MPa ,which was significantly lower than that recorded for reinforced resin
Each patient had two contralateral lower first permanent molars indicated for preventive restorations. Each patient had one molar restored with PAR and the contralateral one restored with PRR. All cavities were prepared using hand instruments.
The restorations were evaluated for retention,marginal integrity and clinical effectiveness after 1,3 and 6 monthes.
The reinforced resin sealant used with PRR showed 95% retention after 1 and 3 months, this dropped to 85% at the end of 6 months. Retention of bonded amalgam sealant used with PAR was 85% after 1 and 3 months and 80% at the end of 6 months. However, there was no significant difference between the two groups.
The reinforced resin sealant showed 75% Alfa ratings for marginal integrity after
6 months, which was the same value recorded for bonded amalgam sealant after the same period of time,with no significant difference.
Recurrent caries was not observed in any of the restored teeth,throughout the study period.
Laboratory .study was conducted on 48 extracted caries-free human third molars. Twenty teeth were used for shear bond strength testing and 28 teeth were used for marginal microleakage evaluation.
The mean shear bond value for bonded amalgam before thermocycling was 8.6
MPa ,which was significantly lower than that recorded for reinforced resin
Other data
| Title | Preventive Resin Restoration Versus Preventive Amalgam Restoration in Permanent molars Using the Atraumatic Restorative Treatment Technique. A Comparative Study | Other Titles | تقييم ومقارنة بين حشو الراتنجات الوقائي وحشو المملغم الوقائي باستخدام خطة العلاج الترميمي اللا اصابي في الضروس الدائمة | Authors | Ghada Mohamed Mahmoud | Issue Date | 2001 |
Attached Files
| File | Size | Format | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ghada Mohamed Mahmoud.pdf | 1.48 MB | Adobe PDF | View/Open |
Similar Items from Core Recommender Database
Items in Ain Shams Scholar are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.