Ostlund J, Möller K, Koch G
Department of Pediatric Dentistry, Linköping, Sweden.
Swed Dent J. 1992;16(3):81-6.
Amalgam (ANA 2000), composite resin (Occlusin), and glass ionomer cement (ChemFil) were compared in conventional Class II restorations in second primary molars. Twenty-five restorations of each material were placed by two dentists in 50 patients. The restorations were evaluated during a three year period using the USPHS criteria. Great differences could be found between the materials. The failure rate (USPHS ratings Charlie) was after three years 8 per cent for the amalgam, 16 per cent for the composite resin and 60 per cent for the glass ionomer cement restorations.
在第二乳磨牙的传统Ⅱ类洞修复中，对汞合金（ANA 2000）、复合树脂（Occlusin）和玻璃离子水门汀（ChemFil）进行了比较。两位牙医为50名患者放置了每种材料的25个修复体。在三年期间，使用美国公共卫生署（USPHS）标准对修复体进行评估。发现不同材料之间存在很大差异。三年后，汞合金修复体的失败率（USPHS评级为C级）为8%，复合树脂修复体为16%，玻璃离子水门汀修复体为60%。
