Comparison of composite and amalgam in posterior teeth of children

Composite resin has been approved as an acceptable alternative for amalgam particularly in primary teeth. In this study an experimental composite (H-120) and an amalgam (Sybralloy) were placed in 152 Class I and II preparations in primary molars and 183 Class I preparations in first permanent molars of 41 children. The restorations were evaluated at 6, 12, and 24 months using the USPHS system. Except for wear there was little difference in the clinical performance of the composite and amalgam at 24 months. Wear was greater in the composite than the amalgam, particularly in permanent tooth restorations. An equal number of failures (four) occurred with the 2 materials, but the composite failed in 2 permanent tooth restorations whereas the amalgam failed only in the primary teeth. The performance of H-120 was compared to a previous study of Ful-Fil in primary molars. Results were similar except H-120 matched the tooth better but Ful-Fil exhibited less wear. Because of excessive wear in permanent teeth, the results of this study suggest that H-120 can not be recommended as a restorative material in permanent posterior teeth of children.