OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to compare amalgam (A1), bonding+amalgam (A2) and Composite (K) to determine the most appropriate restoration material for posterior dogs' teeth which are under great chewing pressure.

MATERIALS

The material comprised of 30 teeth for in vitro study and of 72 teeth for the in vivo study. These main groups were subdivided into three groups; A1, A2 and K. Following preparation of Class VI cavities in the specimens of all groups, routine restoration procedure was applied. In the in vitro study all teeth in each group were evaluated for their microleakage level. In the in vivo study teeth in each group were scored by using USPHS criteria according their surface appearance, marginal adaptation, marginal discoloration, anatomic form and secondary caries during 6 months on 15., 30., 60., 90., 120., 150. and 180. days after restoration.

RESULTS

The in vitro Group A1 showed a difference to group A2 and group K (p<0,05). There was no significant difference between group A2 and group K (p>0,05). At the end of six months there was no statistically significant difference between all groups (p>0,05). The evaluation of the restorations quality looses during six months showed that A1 restorations had best appearances compared to A2 and K. Marginal adaptation was best in group A1 and the worst in group A2. Evaluation of the marginal discoloration revealed that group A1 was the best and group K the worst. Best anatomic form was observed in group K and worst A2. Concerning secondary caries there was no difference between the groups

CONCLUSION

Amalgam and composite restoration materials are found to be suitable for dogs' posterior teeth. Amalgam in combination with bonding is not appropriate but comparative studies should be performed with amalgam bond. Considering microleakage and other criteria, composite restoration material is the most appropriate restoration material for class VI cavities in posterior dogs' teeth.