{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.023465703971119134, 'fraction_numerical': 0.009927797833935019, 'mean_word_length': 5.640718562874252, '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 evaluation of combined amalgam and composite resin restorations in extensively carious vital posterior teeth: An in vivo study

Aim: The clinical performance of the combined composite – amalgam restorations in posterior teeth was evaluated. Materials and Methods: One hundred carious posterior teeth were randomly divided into four groups of 25 teeth each. In Group A, the teeth were restored with composite Z250 and amalgam FusionAlloy. In Group B, composite Surefil and amalgam were used. In Groups C and D, the teeth were restored with composite Surefil and amalgam FusionAlloy, respectively. The restorations were evaluated at 3, 6, 12, and 15 months, using the Ryge criteria. Results: Combined restorations and amalgam restorations showed better contact and contour than the composite restorations. No statistically significant difference was observed among the groups. Three amalgam restorations exhibited loss of retention. Conclusion: The combined composite–amalgam restorations performed better for contact and contour and retention than composite and amalgam restorations, respectively.