Clinical performance of high-viscosity glass ionomer and resin composite on minimally invasive occlusal restorations performed without rubber-dam isolation: a two-year randomised split-mouth study

SUMMARY Objectives: The aim of this clinical study was to evaluate the clinical performance of Class II restorations of a high-viscosity glass ionomer material, of a bulk-fill composite resin, and of a microhybrid composite resin. Methods and Materials: One hundred nine Class II restorations were performed in 54 patients using three different restorative materials: Charisma Smart Composite (CSC; a conventional composite resin), Filtek Bulk Fill Posterior Restorative (FBF; a high-viscosity bulk-fill composite), and Equia Forte Fil (EF; a high-viscosity glass ionomer). Single Bond Universal adhesive (3M ESPE, Neuss, Germany) was used for both conventional and bulk-fill composite resin restorations. The restorations were evaluated using modified US Public Health Service criteria in terms of retention, color match, marginal discoloration, anatomic form, contact point, marginal adaptation, secondary caries, postoperative sensitivity, and surface texture. The data were analyzed using the chi-square, Fisher, and McNemar tests. Results: Eighty-four restorations were evaluated at two-year recalls. There were clinically acceptable changes in composite resin restorations (FBF and CSC). In addition, no statistically significant difference was observed between the clinical performances of these materials in terms of all criteria (p>0.05). However, there was a statistically significant difference between the EF group and the FBF and CSC groups in all parameters except for marginal discoloration, secondary caries, and postoperative sensitivity (p<0.05). Conclusions: The tested bulk-fill and conventional composite resins showed acceptable clinical performance in Class II cavities. However, if EF is to be used for Class II restoration, its use should be carefully considered.

Download Full-text

Clinical Performance of Heat-Cured High-Viscosity Glass Ionomer Class II Restorations in Primary Molars: A Preliminary Study

Journal of Clinical Pediatric Dentistry ◽

10.17796/1053-4628-41.4.264 ◽

2017 ◽

Vol 41 (4) ◽

pp. 264-270 ◽

Cited By ~ 4

Author(s):

Eliyahu Tal ◽

Ari Kupietzky ◽

Anna B Fuks ◽

Nili Tickotsky ◽

Moti Moskovitz

Keyword(s):

Clinical Performance ◽

Glass Ionomer Cement ◽

Class Ii ◽

High Viscosity ◽

Primary Molars ◽

Restorative Material ◽

Glass Ionomer ◽

Recall Time ◽

Preliminary Study ◽

Ionomer Cement

Objectives: The present preliminary study evaluated the clinical and radiographic performances of heat-cured high viscosity glass ionomer (HCHVGI) in class II restorations of primary molars. Study design: A retrospective study on a cohort of patients who had dental caries restored at a private practice was conducted. Restorations were evaluated radiographically and photographically by two separate examiners. Results: Ninety-three Class II restorations in 44 patients (average age: 108 months ± 25.3, 24 males, 20 females) were examined. Average recall time was 22.2 months ± 4.2. All but three restorations (96.8%) were present and intact, with no incidents of secondary caries. Three additional restorations had occlusal defects that required retreatment, resulting in an overall success rate of 93.5%. Ninety-seven percent of the restorations were rated optimal for marginal integrity with no staining of the restoration surfaces. No patients complained of post-operative sensitivity. The most common flaw found was a concavity on the proximal wall of the cavity box (27%, mean age 16 months ± 3.9). Conclusion: The findings in this preliminary study suggest that heat cured high viscosity glass ionomer cement may be an effective restorative material for Class II restorations in primary molars that are a year or two from shedding.

Download Full-text

Two-year clinical performance of glass ionomer and resin composite restorations in xerostomic head- and neck-irradiated cancer patients

Clinical Oral Investigations ◽

10.1007/s00784-009-0355-4 ◽

2009 ◽

Vol 15 (1) ◽

pp. 31-38 ◽

Cited By ~ 31

Author(s):

Roeland J. G. De Moor ◽

Inge G. Stassen ◽

Yoke van ’t Veldt ◽

Dries Torbeyns ◽

Geert M. G. Hommez

Keyword(s):

Head And Neck ◽

Cancer Patients ◽

Clinical Performance ◽

Resin Composite ◽

Glass Ionomer ◽

Composite Restorations

Download Full-text

Clinical Comparison of Bur- and Laser-prepared Minimally Invasive Occlusal Resin Composite Restorations: Two-year Follow-up

Operative Dentistry ◽

10.2341/09-339-c ◽

2010 ◽

Vol 35 (5) ◽

pp. 500-507 ◽

Cited By ~ 18

Author(s):

A. R. Yazici ◽

M. Baseren ◽

J. Gorucu

Keyword(s):

Minimally Invasive ◽

Clinical Relevance ◽

Clinical Performance ◽

Resin Composite ◽

Promising Alternative ◽

Composite Restorations ◽

Clinical Comparison ◽

Prepared Composite

Clinical Relevance The laser could be a promising alternative for minimally invasive occlusal resin composite cavity preparations, as its clinical performance was similar to bur-prepared composite restorations.

Download Full-text

A prospective and randomized clinical trial evaluating the effectiveness of ART restorations with high-viscosity glass-ionomer cement versus conventional restorations with resin composite in Class II cavities of permanent teeth: two-year follow-up

Journal of Applied Oral Science ◽

10.1590/1678-7757-2020-0609 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 29 ◽

Author(s):

Rafael MENEZES-SILVA ◽

Sofia R Maito VELASCO ◽

Eduardo BRESCIANi ◽

Roosevelt da Silva BASTOS ◽

Maria Fidela de Lima NAVARRO

Keyword(s):

Clinical Trial ◽

Randomized Clinical Trial ◽

Resin Composite ◽

Glass Ionomer Cement ◽

Class Ii ◽

High Viscosity ◽

Permanent Teeth ◽

Glass Ionomer ◽

Ionomer Cement

Download Full-text

Impact of the Porosity from Incremental and Bulk Resin Composite Filling Techniques on the Biomechanical Performance of Root-Treated Molars

Operative Dentistry ◽

10.2341/19-297-l ◽

2021 ◽

Author(s):

RAS Pereira ◽

PBF Soares ◽

AA Bicalho ◽

LM Barcelos ◽

LRS Oliveira ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Fracture Mode ◽

Fracture Resistance ◽

Composite Resin ◽

Resin Composite ◽

Glass Ionomer Cement ◽

High Viscosity ◽

Composite Resins ◽

Glass Ionomer ◽

Pulp Chamber ◽

Ionomer Cement

SUMMARY Objectives: To analyze the effect of the porosity caused by incremental and bulk resin composite filling techniques using low- and high-viscosity composite resins on the biomechanical performance of root-treated molars. Methods: Forty intact molars received standardized mesio-occlusal-distal (MOD) cavity preparation, were root treated, and randomly divided into four groups with different filling techniques (n=10). The first involved two incremental filling techniques using VIT/Z350XT, a nanofilled composite resin (Filtek Z350XT, 3M ESPE) associated with a resinmodified glass ionomer cement, and resin-modified glass ionomer cement (RMGIC; Vitremer, 3M ESPE) for filling the pulp chamber. The second involved TPH/VIT, a microhybrid composite resin TPH3 Spectrum associated with Vitremer. The third and fourth involved two bulk-fill composite resins: SDR/TPH, a low-viscosity resin composite (Surefill SDR flow, Dentsply) associated with TPH3 Spectrum, and POST, a high-viscosity bulkfill resin composite (Filtek Bulk Fill Posterior, 3M ESPE). The volume of the porosity inside the restoration was calculated by micro-CT. The cusp deformation caused by polymerization shrinkage was calculated using the strain-gauge and micro-CT methods. The cusp deformation was also calculated during 100 N occlusal loading and loading to fracture. The fracture resistance and fracture mode were recorded. Data were analyzed by one-way analysis of variance and Tukey test. The fracture mode was analyzed by the χ2 test. The volume of the porosity was correlated with the cusp deformation, fracture resistance, and fracture mode (α=0.05). Results: Incremental filling techniques associated with RMGIC resulted in a significantly higher porosity than that of both bulk-fill techniques. However, no significant difference was found among the groups for the fracture resistance, fracture mode, and cusp deformation, regardless of the measurement time and method used. No correlation was observed between the volume of the porosity and all tested parameters. Conclusions: The porosity of the restorations had no influence on the cuspal deformation, fracture resistance, or fracture mode. The use of the RMGIC for filling the pulp chamber associated with incremental composite resins resulted in similar biomechanical performance to that of the flowable or regular paste bulk-fill composite resin restorations of root-treated molars.

Download Full-text

The Effect of Resin-modified Glass-ionomer Cement Base and Bulk-fill Resin Composite on Cuspal Deformation

Operative Dentistry ◽

10.2341/14-331-l ◽

2016 ◽

Vol 41 (2) ◽

pp. 208-218 ◽

Cited By ~ 5

Author(s):

KV Nguyen ◽

RH Wong ◽

J Palamara ◽

MF Burrow

Keyword(s):

Resin Composite ◽

Glass Ionomer Cement ◽

High Viscosity ◽

Glass Ionomer ◽

Base Materials ◽

Resin Modified Glass Ionomer ◽

Maxillary Premolars ◽

Materials Used ◽

Ionomer Cement ◽

Adhesive Materials

SUMMARY Objectives: This study investigated cuspal deformation in teeth restored with different types of adhesive materials with and without a base. Methods: Mesio-occluso-distal slot cavities of moderately large dimension were prepared on extracted maxillary premolars (n=24). Teeth were assigned to one of four groups and restored with either a sonic-activated bulk-fill resin composite (RC) (SonicFill), or a conventional nanohybrid RC (Herculite Ultra). The base materials used were a flowable nanofilled RC (Premise Flowable) and a high-viscosity resin-modified glass-ionomer cement (RMGIC) (Riva Light-Cure HV). Cuspal deflection was measured with two direct current differential transformers, each contacting a buccal and palatal cusp. Cuspal movements were recorded during and after restoration placement. Data for the buccal and palatal cusp deflections were combined to give the net cuspal deflection. Results: Data varied widely. All teeth experienced net inward cuspal movement. No statistically significant differences in cuspal deflection were found among the four test groups. Conclusions: The use of a flowable RC or an RMGIC in closed-laminate restorations produced the same degree of cuspal movement as restorations filled with only a conventional nanohybrid or bulk-fill RC.

Download Full-text

5-year Clinical Performance of Resin Composite Versus Resin Modified Glass Ionomer Restorative System in Non-carious Cervical Lesions

Operative Dentistry ◽

10.2341/05-87 ◽

2006 ◽

Vol 31 (4) ◽

pp. 403-408 ◽

Cited By ~ 35

Author(s):

E. B. Franco ◽

A. R. Benetti ◽

S. K. Ishikiriama ◽

S. L. Santiago ◽

J. R. P. Lauris ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Clinical Relevance ◽

Clinical Performance ◽

Resin Composite ◽

Glass Ionomer ◽

Cervical Lesions ◽

Class V ◽

Resin Modified Glass Ionomer ◽

Term Evaluation ◽

Materials Behavior

Clinical Relevance A long-term evaluation of the materials' behavior is relevant for Class V restorations in which clinical performance is particularly challenging.

Download Full-text

Randomized Clinical Trial of Adhesive Restorations in Non Carious Cervical Lesions

Key Engineering Materials ◽

10.4028/www.scientific.net/kem.695.3 ◽

2016 ◽

Vol 695 ◽

pp. 3-11 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

Sanda Mihaela Popescu ◽

Mihaela Jana Ţuculină ◽

Horia Octavian Manolea ◽

Veronica Mercuţ ◽

Monica Scrieciu

Keyword(s):

Clinical Trial ◽

Randomized Clinical Trial ◽

Clinical Performance ◽

Resin Composite ◽

Survival Rates ◽

Glass Ionomer Cement ◽

Glass Ionomer ◽

Cervical Lesions ◽

Significant Difference ◽

Resin Modified Glass Ionomer

AIM: To evaluate the clinical performance of adhesive restorations of resin-modified glass-ionomer cements (RMGIC) compared with of resin composite (RC), and RMGIC liner base laminated with a resin composite in non carious cervical lesions (NCCL).METHODS: The randomized clinical trial included 45 patients (25-65 year-old), with at least two similar sized NCCL on premolars. After sample size calculation, 220 restorations were placed, according to one of the following groups: (G1) Resin-modified glass-ionomer cement (Vitremer); (G2) a resin composite and an adhesive layer (Versaflo); (G3) RMGIC liner base laminated with a resin composite (Vitremer and Versaflo). The restorations were clinically followed every 6 months for up to 24 months using the USPHS modified criteria for clinical evaluation. Survival estimates for restoration longevity were evaluated using the Kaplan-Meier method. Log-rank test (P< 0.05) was used to compare the differences in the success rate according to the type of the restorative material.RESULTS: At the end of 24 months, 172 restorations were evaluated in 37 patients, with a recall rate of 82.22%. The type of restorative material used did not influence the longevity of the restorations. The survival rates for the follow-up were similar regarding the number of restored surfaces and the tooth (upper or lower premolar). Estimated survival rates of the restorations were 100%, 100%, 98,25% and 90,69% at 6, 12, 18 and 24 months of clinical evaluations, respectively. A statistically significant difference was observed between RMGIC and RC or RMGIC laminated with RC for color match, but no other significant difference was observed among the three types of restorations.CONCLUSIONS: The survival rates were similar for the three types of restorations in NCCL. Different types of materials demonstrated acceptable clinical performance in non-carious cervical lesions.

Download Full-text