Clinical comparison of a micro-hybride resin-based composite and resin modified glass ionomer in the treatment of cervical caries lesions: 36-month, split-mouth, randomized clinical trial

Odontology ◽  
2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Uzay Koc Vural ◽  
Leyla Kerimova ◽  
Arlin Kiremitci
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Randomized Clinical Trial ◽  
Glass Ionomer ◽  
Clinical Comparison ◽  
Resin Modified Glass Ionomer ◽  
Caries Lesions

Randomized Clinical Trial of Adhesive Restorations in Non Carious Cervical Lesions

2016 ◽  
Vol 695 ◽  
pp. 3-11 ◽  
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.

scholarly journals Can bulk-fill resin restorations be an alternative to resin-modified glass ionomer cement restorations in primary molars of toddlers? A randomized clinical trial protocol.

2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (3) ◽  
pp. 1-10
Author(s):  
Isabela Coelho Novaes ◽  
◽  
Luna Chagas Clementino ◽  
Fernanda Morais Ferreira ◽  
Tathiane Lenzi ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Dental Caries ◽  
Randomized Clinical Trial ◽  
Glass Ionomer Cement ◽  
Primary Molars ◽  
Trial Protocol ◽  
Glass Ionomer ◽  
Resin Modified Glass Ionomer ◽  
Ionomer Cement ◽  
Untreated Dental Caries

Background: The aim of this study was to elaborate a randomized clinical trial protocol to evaluate the effectiveness of class I restorations in resin-modified glass ionomer cement (RMGIC) and bulk-fill resin in primary molars with untreated early childhood caries in toddlers. Material and Methods: A total of 59 toddlers up to 36 months old with at least two primary molar teeth with untreated dental caries of single surface on different sides of the mouth will be selected at the Pediatric Dentistry Clinics of the Faculty of Dentistry at Federal University of Minas Gerais (UFMG), Brazil. Teeth with untreated dental caries in the left and right sides of each patient’s mouth will be randomly distributed into 2 groups: Group 1 (Control): encapsulated RMGIC restoration with Riva light cure (SDI, Florida, USA) and Group 2 (Test): Filtek bulk-fill composite resin restoration (3M/ESPE, St. Paul, USA) with universal single bond adhesive system (3M/ESPE, St. Paul, USA). A single trained dentist will perform all restorative procedures. The restorations will be evaluated after 1, 6, 12, 18 and 24 months by two trained and calibrated examiners. Cost-efficacy analysis will be carried out. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis, Log-rank test, Cox regression, Poisson regression analysis, Mann-Whitney test or Kruskal-Wallis will be performed to analyze data. Conclusion: The protocol will make it possible to determine the most efficacy material for the restoration of cavities in cavities in primary molars of toddlers.

scholarly journals Glass Ionomer Sealants Can Prevent Dental Caries but Cannot Prevent Posteruptive Breakdown on Molars Affected by Molar Incisor Hypomineralization: One-Year Results of a Randomized Clinical Trial

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-9
Author(s):  
Milou S. Schraverus ◽  
Isabel C. Olegário ◽  
Clarissa C. Bonifácio ◽  
Ana Paola R. González ◽  
Murisi Pedroza ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Dental Caries ◽  
Randomized Clinical Trial ◽  
Glass Ionomer Cement ◽  
Glass Ionomer ◽  
Molar Incisor Hypomineralization ◽  
One Year ◽  
Caries Lesions ◽  
Ionomer Cement ◽  
Sealant Group

To evaluate the preventive effect of glass ionomer cement (GIC) against dental caries and posteruptive breakdown (PEB) on molars affected by molar incisor hypomineralization (MIH). In this randomized clinical trial, 77 children aged 5–9 years with at least 1 MIH-affected molar and without PEB or dentin caries lesions (<i>n</i> = 228) were included and randomly allocated to one of the following groups: (1) MIH-affected molars that remained unsealed and (2) MIH-affected molars that received GIC sealants. Dental caries and PEB were clinically evaluated after 6 and 12 months. Associations between dental caries and PEB with independent variables were evaluated using logistic regression analysis (<i>p</i> &#x3c; 0.05). The MIH-affected molars allocated to the GIC sealant group were less likely to develop dental caries compared to those allocated to the unsealed group (OR = 0.23; 95% CI 0.06–0.95). Conversely, application of a GIC sealant was not associated with prevention of PEB (<i>p</i> = 0.313). Furthermore, MIH-affected molars presenting yellow-brown opacities were almost 5 times more likely to develop dental caries (<i>p</i> = 0.013) and PEB (<i>p</i> = 0.001) compared to those presenting white-creamy opacities. We can conclude that GIC sealants can prevent dental caries on MIH-affected molars; however, the same protective effect was not observed for PEB.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document