A calcium aluminate cement (Doxa Certex, Uppsala, Sweden) has recently been developed intended for use as direct restorative filling material for posterior restorations. The material is inorganic and non-metallic and the main components are CaO, Al2O3, SiO2, and water. The aim of this study was to evaluate intra-individually the experimental calcium aluminate cement (CAC) and a resin composite (RC) in Class II restorations. Each of 57 participants received at least one pair of restorations of the same size, one CAC and one RC (Tetric Ceram). Sixty-one pairs were performed. The restorations were evaluated clinically, according to slightly modified USPHS criteria, at baseline, after 6 months, 1, and 2 years. One-hundred-and-twenty restorations were evaluated at 2 years. Postoperative sensitivity was reported for 5 restorations (2 RC, 3 CAC). Significantly better clinical durability was shown for RC. Five non-acceptable CAC restorations (8.2%) were observed at 6 months, 10 CAC (16.7%) and 2 RC (3.3%) at 12 months, and 11 CAC (18.3%) at 24 months. This resulted in a cumulative failure frequency of 43.3% for the CAC material and 3.3% for the RC material. Main reasons for failure for the CAC were partial material fracture (7), cusp fracture (5), and proximal chip fracture (6). The CAC showed a non-acceptable clinical failure rate for Class II restorations, probably caused by its difficult handling and low mechanical properties.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Dijken et al. (2003) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: