This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Wendell, J.J. Articles by Vann, W.F. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Wendell, J.J. Articles by Vann, W.F., jr Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

Wear of Composite Resin Restorations in Primary versus Permanent Molar Teeth

Department of Pediatric Dentistry, School of Dentistry, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27514

W.F. Vann, jr

Department of Pediatric Dentistry, School of Dentistry, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27514

The purpose of this investigation was to compare the wear rates of posterior composite resin restorations in primary versus permanent teeth. Based on theories of composite wear in primary molars, as well as on empirical observations, we hypothesized that wear would be greater in permanent tooth restorations. In Part I of the study, quantitative wear data from four different clinical trials (three permanent tooth studies and one primary tooth study) were compared. The same posterior composite restorative material was investigated in each of the four studies.

In Part II of the study, quantitative wear data were drawn from a single clinical trial wherein the same experimental posterior composite material was placed in primary and permanent molars in the same children. In Part II, the baseline sample size included posterior composite restorations placed in 92 primary and 95 permanent molars in all children (ages 7-10). Quantitative wear data were obtained by the cast assessment method at baseline, six, 12, and 24 months. The 24-month sample size was based on 48 available primary molar restorations and 89 permanent molar restorations. The loss of primary restorations was due almost exclusively to natural exfoliations.

Findings in Part I revealed no significant difference in the wear of primary versus permanent molar restorations. In Part II, wear findings for primary molar versus permanent teeth, respectively, were as follows (in micrometers): 47 versus 49 at six months; 86 versus 80 at 12 months; and 133 versus 131 at 24 months. With a Wilcoxon two-sample test and an alpha level of 0.05, there were no significant differences at any recall for the wear rate of primary versus permanent restorations. These results differ sharply from findings reported by others.

Journal of Dental Research, Vol. 67, No. 1, 71-74 (1988)
DOI: 10.1177/00220345880670011401


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?