A one-year clinical evaluation of a high-viscosity glass ionomer cement in primary molars

In this study one-year clinical results of high-viscosity glass ionomer cement (GIC) (Fuji IX, A3, GC, Japan) were determined in class I and class II restorations in 68 primary molars with occlusal or approximal caries. Following caries removal and cavity preparation, the teeth were restored with Fuji IX. The restorations were evaluated according to the U.S. Public Health Service's (USPHS) criteria at the end of one year. Statistical analyses of the data obtained were analyzed using the X2 test. The evaluations showed no statistically significant difference between class I and class II restorations in terms of the color mismatch, anatomic form, marginal adaptation, and secondary caries (P>0.05), but they were statistically significant with regard to cavosurface marginal discoloration (P<0.05). At the end of one year, the success rate of the class I and class II restorations of the primary molars restored with Fuji IX was 94%.     

Flowable resin composite as a class II restorative in primary molars: A two-year clinical evaluation

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the clinical durability of flowable resin composite and resin-modified glass ionomer cement when used as class II restoratives in primary molars. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A total of 190 restorations were placed in 61 children, age in the range of 5-11 years. The restoratives, Tetric Flow, in combination with the adhesives, Excite or Prompt-L-Pop and Vitremer, were used in class II cavities in primary molars. An intra-individual study design was used and the restorations were evaluated by modified USPHS criteria over a 2-year period. RESULTS: 146 of the restorations could be evaluated at 2 years. The cumulative failure rate was 10.6% for Vitremer and 13.6% for Tetric Flow. No statistically significant differences were found in failure rates between different materials or between bonding systems. The main cause of failure for Tetric Flow was secondary caries and for Vitremer wear and dissolution. CONCLUSIONS: Vitremer and Tetric Flow showed no significant difference concerning clinical durability at 2 years when used as class II restoratives in primary molars. Both materials demonstrated acceptable clinical results.     

Flowable resin composite as a class II restorative in primary molars: A two-year clinical evaluation

Objective. To evaluate the clinical durability of flowable resin composite and resin-modified glass ionomer cement when used as class II restoratives in primary molars. Material and Methods. A total of 190 restorations were placed in 61 children, age in the range of 5–11 years. The restoratives, Tetric Flow, in combination with the adhesives, Excite or Prompt-L-Pop and Vitremer, were used in class II cavities in primary molars. An intra-individual study design was used and the restorations were evaluated by modified USPHS criteria over a 2-year period. Results. 146 of the restorations could be evaluated at 2 years. The cumulative failure rate was 10.6% for Vitremer and 13.6% for Tetric Flow. No statistically significant differences were found in failure rates between different materials or between bonding systems. The main cause of failure for Tetric Flow was secondary caries and for Vitremer wear and dissolution. Conclusions. Vitremer and Tetric Flow showed no significant difference concerning clinical durability at 2 years when used as class II restoratives in primary molars. Both materials demonstrated acceptable clinical results.     

Posterior resin composite restorations with or without resin‐modified,glass‐ionomer cement lining: a 1‐year randomized,clinical trial

Aim: To investigate the effect of resin‐modified, glass‐ionomer cement lining on the quality of posterior resin composite restorations, bonded with a two‐step, total‐etch or self‐etching adhesive, at 1 year. Methods: Patients with 1–4 moderate‐to‐deep, primary occlusal caries in molars were informed and recruited. A total of 110 composite restorations were placed in 75 participants, with one of four restorative procedures: (a) bonded with a total‐etch adhesive (Single Bond 2); (b) lined with glass‐ionomer cement (Fuji Lining LC), and then bonded with total‐etch adhesive; (c) bonded with a self‐etching adhesive (Clearfil SE Bond); and (d) lined with glass‐ionomer cement, and then bonded with self‐etching adhesive. Results: At 1 year, 57 patients (86 restorations) attended the recall. Each of the restorations was evaluated and scored from 1 (clinically excellent) to 5 (clinically poor) using the following criteria: (a) patient satisfaction; (b) fracture and retention; (c) marginal adaptation; (d) recurrent caries; and (e) post‐operative sensitivity. At 1 year, the qualities of the restorations were not significantly affected by the placement of glass‐ionomer cement lining, regardless of the adhesive used (P > 0.05). Most of the restorations were scored 1 for all criteria. Conclusions: The benefit of placing a glass‐ionomer cement liner in resin composite restoration is questionable.     

Remineralizing effects of glass ionomer restorations on adjacent interproximal caries

The purpose of this study was to examine the in vitro remineralization of incipient caries lesions on teeth adjacent interproximally to teeth with Class II glass ionomer cement restorations. Sixty-four extracted molars were selected and 1 x 5 mm artificial caries lesions were created at the interproximal contact point. One hundred micrometer sections were obtained at the caries sites, and polarized-light photomicrographs were obtained. The sections were covered with varnish, leaving only the external section site exposed, and were placed back into the original tooth. In another sixty-four molars, Class II cavities were prepared. Equal numbers of preparations were filled with Fuji IX GP, Vitremer, Ketac-Molar, or Z 250. These sixty-four teeth were mounted to have interproximal contact with the adjacent teeth containing the artificial caries lesions. Specimens were placed in closed environments of artificial saliva for one month. After thirty days, the same sections were photographed again under polarized light, and areas of the lesions were quantitated. Decrease in the size of caries lesions indicated the glass ionomers had significantly greater remineralization effects on adjacent caries than the nonfluoridated composite resin (ANOVA p < 0.05). There were no significant differences among the three glass ionomers tested.     

Partial caries removal and cariostatic materials in carious primary molar teeth: a randomised controlled clinical trial

OBJECTIVE: To determine the durability and effectiveness of a black copper cement (BCC) and a conventional glass ionomer cement (GIC) when used to restore primary molars following partial caries removal (PCR) and to compare these results with conventional cavity preparation and restoration. DESIGN: Split-mouth randomised controlled clinical trial. SETTING: Department of Paediatric Dentistry, Dundee Dental Hospital, Dundee, 1998-1999. SUBJECTS: Patients with previously unrestored, matched carious cavities in non-pulpally involved primary molars. INTERVENTIONS: Three treatment groups: (1) Partial caries removal followed by lining with BCC and restoration with GIC (PCR:BCC); (2) Partial caries removal and restoration with GIC alone (PCR:GIC), and (3) Complete caries removal and conventional restoration (CR). Restoration durability and effectiveness was assessed both clinically and radiographically over 24 months.Main outcome measures Median survival time (MST) of restorations. RESULTS: Forty-four patients (F: 31; M: 13), mean age 6.8 years (range: 3.7-9.5), had 120 restorations placed (PCR:GIC: 43; CR: 41; PCR:BCC: 36). Eighty-six molars (29 patients) (PCR:GIC: 30; CR: 29; PCR:BCC: 27) were reviewed at 24 months. The median survival times (MST) with 25% and 75% quartiles in parenthesis were as follows: PCR:BCC, MST = 24 months (6, 24); PCR:GIC, MST = 24 months (24, 24) and CR, MST = 24 months (24, 24). The MST for PCR:BCC restorations was significantly less than for PCR:GIC and CR restorations (W = 1163.5, P = 0.028 and W = 1081.0, P = 0.004 respectively). CONCLUSION: There were no differences in the proportions of restorations lost between restoration types, although PCR:BCC restorations did have significantly more abscess/sinus formation over the 24-month study period.     

Shear bond strength of resin-modified restorative glass-ionomer cements to dentin--an in vitro study

An in vitro study was carried out on 40 periodontally involved, caries free human maxillary and mandibular molars to evaluate shear bond strength of resin- modified restorative glass-ionomer cements to dentin. Teeth were divided into four groups, Group I--Fuji II (Conventional glass ionomer) Group II (Fuji II LC), Group III (Vitremer), Group IV (Geristore). Shear bond strength was tested using a transaxial testing machine. Results showed that shear bond strength of all resin-modified restorative glass-ionomer cements was higher than conventional glass ionomer (Fuji II) tested. No statistical difference was found between Fuji II LC and Geristore. However, bond strength of Vitremer was lower than Fuji II LC and Geristore but higher than Fuji II.     

Inhibition of demineralization in vitro around fluoride releasing materials

Replacement of restorations because of secondary caries is a continuing problem in restorative dentistry. This investigation assessed the capacity of fluoride-releasing restorative materials to resist caries in vitro when used in roots. Class 5 cavities were prepared in buccal and lingual surfaces of 30 extracted premolars and restored with one of three polyacid modified resin composites (F-2000, Hytac and Compoglass F), a resin modified glass-ionomer cement (Fuji II LC) a conventional glass ionomer (Ketac-Fil), and a resin composite (Z-100). After 5 weeks in an acid gel for caries-like lesion formation, the teeth were sectioned longitudinally and examined with polarized light. The results showed that restoration of caries with polyacid modified resin composites and resin modified glass ionomer cements may be of great importance in the prevention of secondary caries around the restorations in roots. Clinical Relevance Light cured fluoride-releasing restorations may inhibit caries-like lesions. Inhibition of demineralization in vitro around fluoride releasing materials.     

Microleakage of a new improved glass ionomer restorative material in primary and permanent teeth

PURPOSE: The objective of this study was to assess the microleakage of the new conventional glass ionomer, Fuji IXgp in comparison to another conventional glass ionomer (Fuji II), a resin modified glass ionomer (Vitremer) and a composite resin (TPH) in primary and permanent teeth. METHODS: Twenty-five extracted human premolars and 13 primary molars were used. Preparations were made on the center of the buccal and lingual aspects of the premolars (Group A) and the mesio buccal and disto buccal surface as well as the mesio lingual and disto lingual surface of the primary molars (Group B). Each group was randomly divided into five subgroups of 10 specimens each and restored with a different material following the manufacturer's recommendations. Restorations were subjected to thermocycling followed by microleakage evaluation using 50% silver nitrate and computerized image analysis. RESULTS: Two factor analysis of variance revealed a significant main effect of material (P<0.001), a trend toward a main effect of tooth type (P=0.082) and a significant interaction term P=0.016. Materials were a source of difference, so a one-way ANOVA test was used for both primary and permanent teeth together and for each individual group of teeth. Differences were further examined with a multi-variate analysis using the Scheffe' test for both groups of teeth and each individual group of teeth. Each group of teeth restored with the same material was then analyzed with an Independent Samples t-test which showed that conventional glass ionomer (Fuji II) had more leakage than all other groups (P<0.01). In addition TPH showed more microleakage in primary teeth (P<0.02) and Fuji II showed more microleakage in permanent teeth (P<0.02). CONCLUSIONS: Fuji IXgp behaved similarly to the composite (TPH) and to the resin modified glass ionomer (Vitremer). This is a promising result for this material that is targeted for application in conjunction with the Atraumatic Restorative Technique and minimal intervention treatments.     

Survival of glass ionomer restorations placed in primary molars using atraumatic restorative treatment (ART) and conventional cavity preparations: 2-year results

OBJECTIVE: To compare the survival of glass ionomer cement (GIC) restorations placed in a dental clinic setting using both the atraumatic restorative treatment (ART) approach with hand instruments, and conventional cavity preparation with rotary instruments. METHOD AND MATERIALS: Two encapsulated high-strength conventional GICs (Fuji IX GP, Ketac-Molar Aplicap) were placed in 82 Class I and 53 Class II preparations and one encapsulated non-gamma 2 amalgam alloy (GK-amalgam) was placed in 32 Class I preparations, in the primary molars of 60 Chinese children with a mean age of 7.40 +/- 1.24 (SD) years. Thus, 9 treatment groups were formed. RESULTS: After two years, there were no significant survival differences found among 7 of the 9 treatment groups (p = 0.99). However, two groups comprising Fuji IX GP and Ketac-Molar Aplicap placed in Class II cavities prepared using the ART approach showed significantly lower restoration survivals (p < 0.001). Only 3 of the 72 initially sealed fissures adjacent to the restorations appeared to retain any GIC material. CONCLUSIONS: In a clinic setting, both the ART hand instrument and conventional rotary instrument methods were equally suitable for high Class I restoration survival, but not for Class II restoration survival where the conventional cavity preparation method was preferable.     

Observations in Australia of the use of glass ionomer cement restorative material

The aim of this study was to evaluate, with the aid of a questionnaire distributed to selected groups of dentists, the use of glass ionomer cement in different types of proximal restorations and further to evaluate any complications observed with the use of GIC. Few dentists responded in the 'Often' category regarding the observation of secondary caries or gingival inflammation in association with GIC fillings compared with about three-quarters of the dentists who reported on posterior composite resin restorations. Tunnel cavities had been prepared and restored by 54 per cent of the dentists, simple proximal restorations in primary molars by 89 per cent and 'sandwich' restorations by 69 per cent. Few dentists with at least two years experience with tunnel restorations observed biological complications, but fracture of the marginal ridge was reported in the 'Often' category by 12 per cent. Among the dentists with at least five years experience with proximal restorations in primary molars 59 per cent of the operators mentioned more complications with these than with amalgam restorations. Biological complications were not a great problem with glass ionomer/composite laminates but wear or dissolution of the proximal GIC surface was recorded in the 'Often' section by 14 per cent of those placing them.     

Restoration of permanent teeth in young rural children in Cambodia using the atraumatic restorative treatment (ART) technique and Fuji II glass ionomer cement

Several recent studies have demonstrated the success of the ART (atraumatic restorative treatment) technique under field conditions in developing countries. The ART technique involves removal of caries using only hand instruments, and placing a glass ionomer cement (GIC) restoration.
Objectives. To estimate the longevity of Fuji II GIC ART restorations placed in permanent teeth by dental nurse students under field conditions in rural Cambodia.
Design . Clinical field trial.
Setting . One high school in rural Cambodia.
Sample and methods . 53 subjects between the ages of 12 and 17 who had dental caries were selected to participate. Subjects were randomly assigned to a dental nurse student for cavity preparation and placement of ART restorations (without cavity conditioning).
Results . 92·1% of the carious lesions required class I or class V restorations, and 85·4% were in the lower molars. 89 teeth were filled. At 1 and 3 years 86·4% and 79·5% of restorations were still present. Restorations were assessed by one dentist according to standard criteria. 76·3% of the restorations were judged to be successful at 1 year, and 57·9% at 3 years.
Conclusions . Factors which may have affected the success rates included: the material used, technical factors, failure to condition the cavity prior to restoration, and inexperience of the operators. The results suggest that ART restorations in permanent teeth using Fuji II GIC are only moderately successful after 3 years. Better results could be expected by using a dentine conditioner in conjunction with one of the newer stronger glass ionomer cements.     

Clinical performance and caries inhibition of resin-modified glass ionomer cement and amalgam restorations

BACKGROUND: The authors clinically examined two restorative materials to evaluate their effectiveness in Class II restorations in primary molars and their ability to inhibit recurrent caries. METHODS: Forty subjects, each in need of two Class II restorations in primary molars, took part in this study. Each patient received one Class II restoration of resin-modified glass ionomer cement and one of amalgam. The authors evaluated the restorations at six-month, one-year, two-year and three-year recall appointments. On exfoliation, teeth with experimental restorations were retrieved and microscopically examined for inhibition of demineralization at restoration margins. RESULTS: The results of the clinical evaluation demonstrated no significant differences between the resin-modified glass ionomer cement restorations and the amalgam restorations (P < .05). Polarized light microscopic examination of the returned teeth that were restored as a part of this study indicated that the resin-modified glass ionomer cement had significantly less enamel demineralization at restoration margins than did amalgam (P < .0001). CONCLUSIONS: The resin-modified glass ionomer cement functioned clinically as well as amalgam for Class II restorations in primary molars. However, the resin-modified glass ionomer exhibited significantly less enamel demineralization at restoration margins than did amalgam. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: Resin-modified glass ionomer cement restorative material functions well for Class II restorations in primary molars and exhibits less recurrent caries at restoration margins than does amalgam.     

Radiation-induced root surface caries restored with glass-ionomer cement placed in conventional and ART cavity preparations: results at two years

BACKGROUND: There are no published studies comparing the clinical performances of more-viscous glass-ionomer cement (GIC) restorations when placed using conventional and atraumatic restorative treatment (ART) cavity preparation methods to restore root surface caries. METHODS: One dentist used encapsulated Fuji IX GP and Ketac-Molar to restore 72 conventional and 74 ART cavity preparations for 15 patients who had received cervicofacial radiation therapy. Two assessors evaluated the restorations at six, 12, and 24 months for retention, marginal defects and surface wear, and recurrent caries. RESULTS: After two years, the cumulative restoration successes were 65.2 per cent for the conventional and 66.2 per cent for the ART cavity preparations, without statistical or clinical significance (P > 0.50). Restoration dislodgement accounted for 82.8 per cent and marginal defects for 17.2 per cent of all failures. There were no instances of unsatisfactory restoration wear or recurrent caries observed. Teeth with three or more restored cervical surfaces accounted for 79.3 per cent of all failures (P < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: For root surface caries restored with GIC, the use of hand instruments only with the ART method was an equally effective alternative to conventional rotary instrumentation for cavity preparation. Larger restorations had higher failures, usually from dislodgement.     

The effect of a nano-filled resin coating on the 3-year clinical performance of a conventional high-viscosity glass-ionomer cement

Objectives

The main aim of the study was to compare the clinical performance of the conventional high-powder/liquid ratio glass-ionomer cement (GIC) Fuji IX GP Extra (F IX), Fuji IX GP Extra with a low-viscosity nano-filled resin coating, G-Coat Plus (F IX+GCP), and a resin composite, Solare (S), as a comparison material.

Materials and methods

Moderate-depth occlusal cavities in the first permanent molars of 91 11–12-year-old children (1–4 restorations per child) were restored with either F IX (87 restorations), F IX+GCP (84 restorations) or S (83 restorations). Direct clinical assessment, photographic assessment and assessment of stone casts of the restorations were carried out at 6 months, 1 year, 2 years and 3 years.

Results

The colour match with the tooth of the GIC restorations improved over the 3 years of the study. Marginal staining and marginal adaptation were minimal for all restorations; three restorations exhibited secondary caries at 3 years. From the assessment of the casts, at 2 years, there was significantly less wear of the F IX GP Extra+GCP restorations than the F IX GP Extra restorations (P?<?0.005). At 3 years, approximately 37 % of F IX GP Extra restorations showed wear slightly more than the adjacent enamel, compared to 28 % of F IX GP Extra+GCP restorations and 21 % of Solare restorations. Although this was not statistically significant, there was a trend that GCP can protect F IX GP Extra against wear.

Conclusion

Although both Fuji IX GP Extra and Fuji IX GP Extra with G-Coat Plus showed acceptable clinical performance in occlusal cavities in children, the application of G-Coat Plus gave some protection against wear.

Clinical relevance

The application of G-Coat Plus to Fuji IX GP Extra glass-ionomer cement may be beneficial in reducing wear in occlusal cavities.     

A clinical evaluation of resin-based composite and glass ionomer cement restorations placed in primary teeth using the ART approach: results at 24 months

BACKGROUND: The authors evaluated the 24-month performance of a packable resin-based composite/dentin bonding system and a high-viscosity glass ionomer cement (GIC) in restorations placed in primary molars with the atraumatic restorative treatment (ART) approach. METHODS: Three dentists placed 419 restorations in 219 children aged 6 through 10 years who had bilateral matched pairs of carious posterior Class I and II primary teeth. They used a split-mouth design to place the two materials, which were assigned randomly to contralateral sides. The authors evaluated the restorations according to U.S. Public Health Service Ryge criteria. RESULTS: After 24 months, 96.7 percent of the Class I GIC restorations and 91 percent of the resin-based composite restorations survived, while the success rates for the Class II restorations were 76.1 percent and 82 percent for the GIC and resin-based composite restorations, respectively. The survival rate of the Class II resin-based composite restorations was 5.9 percent higher than that of the GIC restorations at the 24-month evaluation, but this difference was not statistically significant. However, the study results showed a statistically significant difference in survival rates between Class I and II restorations for both materials. CONCLUSION AND CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: The two-year clinical performance of both materials was satisfactory for the restoration of Class I and II primary molars using the ART approach.     

Evaluation of the clinical behavior of resin modified glass ionomer cement on primary molars: a comparative one-year study

AIM: The objectives of the present study were to evaluate and compare the clinical behavior of resin modified glass ionomer cement (RMGIC) on primary molars with conventional and modified cavity preparations. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Forty-two children, 5-9 years of age, having bilateral initial occlusal caries on the mandibular primary second molars were selected for the study. A split mouth design was employed where conventional Class I cavities with a 90 degrees cavosurface angle were prepared randomly on primary second molars on one side and modified cavities with a 1 mm straight bevel along the cavosurface margin on the contra-lateral side. These cavities were restored with RMGIC. The restorations were evaluated during subsequent visits, for a period of one year. RESULTS: At the end of one year, 90% of the restorations survived in the conventional cavity group whereas 100% of the restorations survived in the modified cavity group. CONCLUSION: Incorporation of a bevel in Class I cavities increases the survival rate of RMGIC restorations. There was no significant difference in the clinical behavior between the two groups. However, beveling does contribute to long term clinical success of these restorations. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Incorporation of a straight bevel in conventional cavities will improve the retention of RMGIC by increasing the bonding area and enhancing the desired properties of the material.     

Lack of effect of fluoride releasing resin modified glass ionomer restorations on the contacting surface of adjacent primary molars. a clinical prospective study.

AIM: This prospective, split mouth control study was planned to clinically evaluate shown short-term caries protection of glass ionomer cement on tooth enamel placed in contact to it, as a result of fluoride release. STUDY DESIGN: The sample consisted of 83 children, aged 4-7 years, visiting a private practice during the years 1999 and 2000. All subjects met the following criteria: a Class II restoration was needed to a maxillary or mandibular primary molar on both sides of the mouth, the adjacent molars being radiographically diagnosed as sound or with caries in the relative proximal enamel only. METHODS: A resin modified glass ionomer restoration (Vitremer, 3M) was placed at the test side chosen by chance, while an amalgam or composite restoration was placed at the control side. Lesion initiation or progression adjacent to each restoration was categorized in 5 stages radiographically. STATISTICS: The non-parametric Marginal Homogeneity test for paired observations was used. RESULTS: Differences between test and control were not statistically significant (p>0.1). Two years after restorations were placed bitewings were taken from 36 children (41 pairs of restorations). Uncontrolled brushing with fluoride dentifrice was reported. Mean fluoride treatments performed were 2.2, initial visit included. Lesion progression was: 14 pairs--no progression in either side; 9 pairs--equal progression by 1 stage in both sides; 9 pairs--progression by 1 stage at test side, no progression at control side; 6 pairs--progression by 1 stage at control side, no progression at test side; 3 pairs--various other combinations of scores. CONCLUSIONS: Under these clinical conditions, fluoride release from Class II Vitremer restorations did not affect the rate of caries progression at the adjacent enamel of proximal primary teeth.     

Silver amalgam versus resin modified GIC class-II restorations in primary molars: twelve month clinical evaluation

The purpose of this study was to compare the clinical efficacy of resin modified GIC with amalgam as a restorative material, in Class-II cavities of primary molars. Restorations were evaluated at four, eight, and twelve months for their marginal integrity, anatomic form and development of recurrent caries. When each parameter was considered separately, there was no difference in the success rate between the two groups, except development of recurrent caries significantly less (p<0.05) in RMGIC group(4.7%) compared to amalgam group (12.5%) at twelve month follow up. However, the cumulative success rate at 12 month was found to be significantly higher (p<0.05) in RMGIC (Fuji II LC) group(83.1%) compared to amalgam(72%).     

Clinical and radiographic assessment of Class II esthetic restorations in primary molars

PURPOSE: The aim of the study was to access the clinical performance of two esthetic materials (Vitremer and Z100 + Scotchbond Multipurpose) when used as Class II restorations in primary molars, and compare them to amalgam controls. METHODS: A total of 102 restorations were placed in primary molars of 29 schoolchildren; 40 were of Vitremer, 38 of Z100 + Scotchbond Multipurpose, and 24 of amalgam (Dispersalloy). The restorations were evaluated clinically at baseline and after 6, 12, 18, 24 months, or until tooth exfoliation or patient drop-out, following the modified Cvar and Ryge criteria. Radiographs were taken at yearly intervals, and the radiograph of the last examination available was assessed and scored. RESULTS: The majority of the restorations examined clinically up to 18 months was good (Alpha according to Cvar and Ryge), and no statistically significant differences between the groups was observed. However, at the 19-24 months evaluation, Z100 rated better than Vitremer for surface appearance and color match. The prevalence of radiolucent defects at the cervical margin for the Z100 (47%) was significantly higher than for amalgam (11%) restorations (P = 0.002) and for Vitremer (13%) restorations (P = 0.008). CONCLUSION: The three materials evaluated (Vitremer, Z100 and Dispersalloy) presented satisfactory clinical performance during the time evaluated (approximately 2 years). Approximately half of the composite resin restorations presented radiographic defects that might require replacement at a later date. In contrast, glass ionomer and amalgam restorations presented significantly less radiographic defects at the time of the final examination. This study suggests that composite resins are indicated for classII restorations in primary molars that are expected to exfoliate within two years.