A comparison of glass cermet cement and amalgam restorations in primary molars.
The aim of this clinical study was to compare the efficacy of GCC with amalgam as a filling material in primary molars. Two hundred fifteen restorations were placed in the first and second primary molars of seventy-four patients, ranging in age from four to ten years. The overall failure rate of amalgam is lower than that of GCC, but not significantly different. In older children, amalgam has greater advantages. An advantage of GCC is the short time required to fill the cavity. This might be an important factor in young and/or difficult children. In these cases amalgam cannot be placed under optimal conditions and, therefore, the results are less satisfactory. GCC is a viable alternative filling material.
Hickel
R
R
Faculty of the Dental School, University of Erlangen-Nurenberg, Germany.
Voss
A
A
D016722:Cermet Cements; D016009:Chi-Square Distribution; D002648:Child; D002675:Child, Preschool; D003722:Dental Alloys; D003723:Dental Amalgam; D003738:Dental Cements; D003793:Dental Restoration, Permanent / Q000379:methods*; D003799:Dental Stress Analysis; D005899:Glass Ionomer Cements; D006801:Humans; D008963:Molar; D012834:Silver; D013499:Surface Properties; D013997:Time Factors; D014094:Tooth, Deciduous
D016722:Cermet Cements; D003722:Dental Alloys; D003738:Dental Cements; D005899:Glass Ionomer Cements; D012834:Silver; C041332:amalcap; D003723:Dental Amalgam