Wear of Composite Resin Restorations in Primary versus Permanent Molar Teeth

Abstract

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.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

ADA Council on Dental Materials, Instruments and Equipment (1984): Revised Guidelines for Submission of Composite Resin Materials for Occlusal Class I and Class II Restoration, J Am Dent Assoc 102:349-350.

Boksman, L. ; Suzuki, M. ; Jordan, R.E. ; and Charles, D.H. (1986): A Visible Light-cured Posterior Composite Resin: Results of a 3-year Clinical Evaluation, JAm Dent Assoc 112 :627-631.

Cvar, J.F. and Ryge, G. (1971): Criteria for the Clinical Evaluation of Dental Restorative Materials, USPHS Pub. No. 790-244, San Francisco: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Dilley, D.C. ; Crisp, R.M. ; Oldenburg, T.R. ; and Vann, W.F. (1985): Time Required for Placement of Alloy Versus Posterior Composite Restorations, J Dent Res 64: 350, Abst. No. 1583.

Goldberg, A.J. ; Rydinge, E. ; Santucci, E.A. ; and Racz, W.B. (1984): Clinical Evaluation Methods for Posterior Composite Restorations, J Dent Res 63:1387-1391.

Leinfelder, K.F. ; Taylor, D.F. ; Barkmeier, W.W. ; and Goldberg, A.J. (1986): Quantitative Wear Measurements of Posterior Composite Resins, Dent Mater 2:198-201.

Leinfelder, K.F. ; Wilder, A.D. ; and Teixeira, L.C. (1986): Wear Rates of Posterior Composite Resins, J Am Dent Assoc 112:829-833.

Miller, S.L. (1981): The Wilcoxon Matched-Pairs Signed-Ranks Test. In: Introductory Statistics for Dentistry and Medicine, Virginia: Reston Publishing, pp. 265-296.

Mortimer, K.V. (1970): The Relationship of Deciduous Enamel Structure to Dental Disease, Caries Res 4:202-223.

10.

Nelson, G.V. ; Osborne, J.W. ; Gale, E.N. ; Norman, R.D. ; and Phillips, R.W. (1980): A Three Year Clinical Evaluation of Composite Resin and a High Copper Amalgam in Posterior Primary Teeth, J Dent Child 47:414-418.

11.

Nose, K. (1961): Study on the Hardness of Human and Animal Teeth , J Kyoto Pref Med Univ 69:1925-1945.

12.

Oldenburg, T.R. ; Vann, W.F. ; and Dilley, D.C. (1985): Composite Restorations for Primary Molars: Two Year Results, Pediatr Dent 7:96-103.

13.

Paquette, D.E. ; Vann, W.F. ; Oldenburg, T.R. ; and Leinfelder, K.F. (1983): Modified Cavity Preparations for Composite Resins in Primary Molars, Pediatr Dent 5:246-251.

14.

Proffit, W.R. and Fields, H.W. (1983): Occlusal Forces in Normal and Long Face Children , J Dent Res 62:571-574.

15.

Proffit, W.R. ; Fields, H.W. ; and Nixon, W.L. (1983): Occlusal Forces in Normal and Long Faced Adults , J Dent Res 62 :566-571.

16.

Roberts, M.W. ; Moffa, J.P. ; and Broring, C.L. (1985): Two Year Clinical Evaluation of a Proprietary Composite Resin for the Restoration of Primary Posterior Teeth, Pediatr Dent 7:14-18.

17.

Sturdevant, J.R. ; Lundeen, T.F. ; Sluder, T.B. ; and Leinfelder, K.F. (1986): Three Year Study of Two Light-Cured Posterior Composite Resins, J Dent Mater 2:263-268.

18.

Taylor, D.F. ; Turnbull, C.D. ; and Leinfelder, K.F. (1984): Comparative Evaluation of Casts for the Measurements of Composite Wear, J Dent Res 63:293, Abst. No. 1104.

19.

Tonn, E.M. and Ryge, G. (1985): Two-Year Clinical Evaluation of Light-Cured Composite Resin Restorations in Primary Molars, J Am Dent Assoc 111:44-48.

20.

Tonn, E.M. and Ryge, G. (1986): Clinical Evaluation of Ful-Fil Posterior Composite Resin: Four Year Report, J Dent Res 65:814, Abst. No. 794 (IADR).

21.

Tonn, E.M. ; Ryge, G. ; and Chambers, D.W. (1980): A Two Year Clinical Study of a Carvable Composite Resin Used as Class n Restorations in Primary Molars, J Dent Child 47:405-413.

22.

Vann, W.F. ; Barkmeier, W.W. ; Oldenburg, T.R. ; and Leinfelder, K.F. (1986): Quantitative Wear Assessments for Composite Restorations in Primary Molars, Pediatr Dent 8:7-10.

23.

Wei, S.H.Y. (1971): Dynamics of the Enamel Surface, Symposium on the Chemistry and Physiology of Enamel, Ann Arbor, MI: The University of Michigan.

24.

Wilder, A.D. ; May, K.N. ; and Leinfelder, K.F. (1984): Five Year Clinical Study of UV-Polymerized Composites in Posterior Teeth, J Dent Res 63:337, Abst. No. 1497.