Purpose: This study was undertaken to compare the clinical performance of a polyacid-modified resin-based composite and a resin-modified glass-ionomer restorative material over 1 year. Materials and Methods: Thirty-four pairs of restorations of Compoglass (C) and Fuji II LC (F) were placed in 31 patients, with no patient receiving more than two pairs, and with materials assigned at random within the pairs. Caries-free cervical erosion/abfraction lesions of the facial surface were restored without tooth preparation according to manufacturers' instructions, except that tooth structure to be restored was etched with 37% phosphoric acid prior to placement of Compoglass. Restorations were clinically evaluated by two blinded examiners at baseline, 6 months, and 1 year, using modified Ryge/USPHS criteria. Restorations receiving a score of "Charlie" in either retention or secondary caries were classified as failed restorations. The incidence of failures was statistically analyzed as a pairwise comparison, using an exact binomial test. Results: Thirty-one pairs of restorations were available for recall at 1 year. The percentage of Alfa scores for each material in each category were: Retention (C = 84%, F = 100%), Color match (C = 81%, F = 100%), Marginal discoloration (C = 78%, F = 97%), Secondary caries (C = 88%, F = 100%), Anatomic form (C = 92%, F = 100%), and Marginal adaptation (C = 26%, F = 46%). Except for the failed restorations, no other Charlie scores were assigned. A significant difference in the incidence of failed restorations was found between the materials (P = 0.01).
|Original language||English (US)|
|Number of pages||4|
|Journal||American journal of dentistry|
|State||Published - Jun 1999|
ASJC Scopus subject areas