The comparison of secondary caries between class I amalgam and class I composite restoration

Nur Hafizah Hanem Zubair, Endang Sukartini, Ayu Trisna Hayati

Abstract


Introducion: Secondary caries or recurrent caries is a lesion which is observed under or around the margins or surrounding walls of an existing restoration. Amalgam has been the restorative method of choice for many years due to its low cost, easy application, strength, durability, and bacteriostatic effects. he need for restorative materials that bear similarity with natural tooth tissue such as composite resins, has increased.The aim of this study is to comparison the occurrence of secondary caries on class I amalgam and class I composite restoration. Methods: The type of research was descriptive study in which 100 samples of each class I amalgam and class I composite from department of conservative dentistry, faculty of dentistry, Rumah Sakit Gigi dan Mulut were taken. The proportion of secondary caries in both amalgam and composite restorations was analysed. Results: The result showed that the proportion of secondary caries on amalgam was 0,38 and composite was 0,19, and then was analysed with two-sample z test. There were significant differences between proportions of secondary caries on class I amalgam and the proportion of secondary caries on class I composite restorations. Conclusion: There is a difference between the proportions of secondary caries on class I amalgam and class I composite restorations where the proportion is higher in amalgam restorations compared to composite.


Keywords


Class I, composite, amalgam, secondary caries.

Full Text:

PDF

References


Kidd EAM. Essential of Dental Caries. 3rd edition. USA: Oxford University Press. 2005: 2-5, 42-59 pp.

Leinder KF. Do restorations made of amalgam outlast those made of resin-based composite?. J Americ Dent Assoc. 2000;1315):1186-7.

Anusavice KJ. Philip’s Science of Dental Materials. 11th Ed. St Louis, USA: Elsevier Science. 2003;430-433 pp.

Summit JB. Fundamental of Operative Dentistry: A contemporary Approach. 3rd Ed. Illinois: Quintessence Publishing Co, Inc. 2006. 296-7, 340-8 pp

Awni M, Kayed SAL. A clinical study of placement and replacement of composite restorations in Jordan. Saudi Dent J. 1999;11(2):53-9.

Kroeze HJP, Plasschaert AJM, MA van’t Hof and Truin GJ. Prevalence need for replacement of amalgam and com-posite restorations in Dutch adult. Journal of Dental Restoration 1990;69: 1270-4 pp.

Noort Richard van. Introduction to dental materials. 2nd Ed. USA: Mosby Inc. 2002. 190-210, 236-59 pp.

Power JM, Sakaguchi RL. Craig’s Restorative Dental materials. 12th Ed. St. Louis: Mosby Inc. 2006;190-210, 236-59 pp.

Teixera AG. Streptococcus mutans- induced secondary caries adjacent to glass ionomer cement, composite resin and amalgam restorations in vitro. J Braz Oral restoration 2007;2(4):368-74.

White SC, Pharoah MJ. Oral Radiology principle and interpretation. 5th Ed. St. Louis: Mosby Inc. 2004;297-302 pp

Mjör IA. Clinical diagnosis of recurrent caries. J Americ Dent Assoc. 2005;13(6):1426-33 pp.




DOI: https://doi.org/10.24198/pjd.vol22no3.26893

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


Visitor Stat

Creative Commons License
Padjadjaran Journal of Dentistry is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License