{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.027375201288244767, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.1840796019900495, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Ketac Molar Versus Dyract Class II restorations in primary molars: twelve month clinical results.

The aim of the present clinical study was an in vivo evaluation of an improved conventional glass ionomer cement Ketac Molar (ESPE), compared to a polyacid modified composite resin, Dyract (Dentsply/De Trey), used in primary molars. Fifty-three Ketac Molar and fifty-two Dyract restorations were placed in box-only preparations in primary molars. The application time for the chemically cured Ketac Molar, was longer compared to the light-cured Dyract. In comparing the materials, no differences were found, comparing both materials regarding secondary caries, marginal adaptation, wear and fracture toughness. One case of recurrent caries adjacent to a Ketac Molar restoration and two cases in the Dyract group were reported. Two Ketac Molar restorations and one Dyract showed bulk fracture at the time of evaluation. At the twelve-month evaluation, no difference between the investigated materials was registered, which indicates that Ketac Molar can be used as a proximal restoration in the primary dentition. It should be emphasized, however, that one-year data should not be extrapolated to indicate the long-term success of restorations.