{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.024175824175824177, 'fraction_numerical': 0.002197802197802198, 'mean_word_length': 5.415492957746479, '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}}
[Comparative in vivo wear-resistance measurements between amalgam and composite materials. Results after 2 years].

The wear resistance of three different types of restorative materials for posterior teeth was examined in a 2-year clinical study. Reduction in vertical dimension was measured with the aid of profilometric grafical curves of the restoration occlusal relief. The following results were obtained: (formula: see text). The results show that, relative to wear resistance, the composite restorative material, strengthened with a new type of anorganic microfiller, is clearly superior to the conventional composite, however, is not equal to amalgam. Besides resistance to wear, there are numerous other demands of a posterior tooth composite system which have yet to be met before these microfiller composites can be recommended for the restoration of conventionally prepared Class I and II cavities.