Clinical performance of pressed ceramic inlays luted with resin-modified glass ionomer and autopolymerizing resin composite cements

1999 ◽  
Vol 82 (5) ◽  
pp. 529-535 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jan W.V. van Dijken ◽  
Annika Örmin ◽  
Anna Lena Olofsson
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Performance ◽  
Resin Composite ◽  
Glass Ionomer ◽  
Ceramic Inlays ◽  
Resin Modified Glass Ionomer ◽  
Composite Cements

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

10.2341/05-87 ◽  
2006 ◽  
Vol 31 (4) ◽  
pp. 403-408 ◽  
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.

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 Seven-Year Clinical Performance of Resin Composite Versus Resin-Modified Glass Ionomer Restorations in Noncarious Cervical Lesions

2014 ◽  
Vol 39 (6) ◽  
pp. 578-587 ◽  
Author(s):  
TC Fagundes ◽  
TJE Barata ◽  
E Bresciani ◽  
SL Santiago ◽  
EB Franco ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Performance ◽  
Resin Composite ◽  
Glass Ionomer ◽  
Retention Performance ◽  
Cervical Lesions ◽  
Composite Restorations ◽  
Marginal Integrity ◽  
Etch And Rinse ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Resin Modified Glass Ionomer

SUMMARY Purpose The purpose of this study was to comparatively assess the seven-year clinical performance of a one-bottle etch-and-rinse adhesive with resin composite (RC) and resin-modified glass ionomer (RMGI) restorations in noncarious cervical lesions. Methods and Materials One operator placed 70 restorations (35 restorations in each group) in 30 patients under rubber dam isolation without mechanical preparation. The restorations were directly assessed by two independent examiners, using modified US Public Health Service criteria at baseline and 6, 12, 24, 60, and 84 months. The obtained data were tabulated and statistically analyzed using the Fisher and McNemar tests. A difference was significant if p&lt;0.05. Results Twenty patients were available for recall after seven years (66.6%), and 25 RC and 26 RMGI restorations out of 70 restorations were evaluated. Excellent agreement was registered for all criteria between examiners (κ≥0.85). Alfa and bravo scores were classified as clinically acceptable. The McNemar test detected significant differences within RC restorations between baseline and seven-year evaluations for anatomic form, marginal integrity, and retention (p&lt;0.05). For RMGI restorations, a significant difference was identified for marginal integrity (p&lt;0.05). As to material comparison, the Fisher exact showed a better retention performance for RMGI restorations than for RC restorations (p&lt;0.05). Twelve composite restorations were dislodged (52.0% retention) and three ionomer restorations were lost (88.5% retention). The cumulative success rate for RC and RMGI was 30% and 58.1%, respectively. Conclusions After seven years of service, the clinical performance of RMGI restorations was superior to that of the adhesive system/resin composite restorations in this study.

scholarly journals To Evaluate Shear Bond Strength of Resin Composite to Theracal Lc, Biodentine, and Resin–Modified Glass Ionomer Cement and Mode of Fracture: An In Vitro Study

2020 ◽  
Vol 8 (02) ◽  
pp. 49-54
Author(s):  
Salil Mehra ◽  
Ashu K. Gupta ◽  
Bhanu Pratap Singh ◽  
Mandeep Kaur ◽  
Ashwath Kumar
Keyword(s):  
Statistical Analysis ◽  
Bond Strength ◽  
Shear Bond Strength ◽  
Resin Composite ◽  
Glass Ionomer Cement ◽  
Bonding Agent ◽  
Glass Ionomer ◽  
Universal Adhesive ◽  
Resin Modified Glass Ionomer ◽  
Ionomer Cement

Abstract Introduction The aim of the current study was to evaluate shear bond strength of resin composite bonded to Theracal LC, Biodentine, and resin-modified glass ionomer cement (RMGIC) using universal adhesive and mode of fracture. Materials and Methods A total of 50 caries-free maxillary and mandibular molars extracted were taken; occlusal cavities were prepared, mounted in acrylic blocks, and divided into five groups based on the liner used. Group 1: Biodentine liner placed into the cavity and bonding agent and resin composite applied after 12 minutes. Group 2: Biodentine liner placed into the cavity and bonding agent and resin composite applied after 14 days. Group 3: RMGIC liner placed into the cavity and bonding agent and resin composite applied immediately. Group 4: RMGIC liner placed into the cavity and bonding agent and resin composite applied after 7 days. Group 5: Theracal LC liner placed into the cavity and bonding agent and resin composite applied immediately. Each sample was bonded to resin composite using universal adhesive. Shear bond strength analysis was performed at a cross-head speed of 0.1 mm/min. Statistical Analysis  Statistical analysis was performed with one-way analysis of variance and posthoc Bonferroni test using SPSS version 22.0. Results and Conclusion Biodentine liner when bonded immediately to resin composite showed minimum shear bond strength. RMGIC when bonded to resin composite after 7 days showed maximum shear bond strength. Mode of fracture was predominantly cohesive in groups having Biodentine and Theracal LC as liner.

scholarly journals Direct Restorations, Endodontics, and Bleaching: Materials and Techniques Used by General Dentists of New Zealand

2019 ◽  
Vol 2019 ◽  
pp. 1-7 ◽  
Author(s):  
Carolina Loch ◽  
Jithendra Ratnayake ◽  
Arthi Veerasamy ◽  
Peter Cathro ◽  
Robert Lee ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
New Zealand ◽  
Resin Composite ◽  
Quality Care ◽  
Glass Ionomer ◽  
New Materials ◽  
Home Based ◽  
Resin Modified Glass Ionomer ◽  
Permanent Molars ◽  
General Dentists ◽  
Deciduous Molars

Background. To investigate the selection and use of direct restorative materials, endodontic techniques adopted, and approaches to bleaching by general dentists in New Zealand. Methods. A questionnaire comprising 19 sections and 125 questions was distributed via mail to 351 general dentists in New Zealand who were selected, at random, from the Dental Council of New Zealand’s 2016 register. Results. A total of 204 questionnaires were returned, of which 188 were usable. Direct resin composite was the most commonly used material for occlusoproximal cavity restorations in premolars (93.7%) and permanent molars (85.2%). Resin-modified glass ionomer cements (34%) and resin composite materials (31.4%) were more commonly used in the restoration of deciduous molars. Home-based vital bleaching was provided by a significant number of dentists (86%), while only 18% provided practice-based bleaching. Cold lateral condensation was the most commonly used obturation technique (55.8%), and 83% of respondents reported using rubber dam for treatments. Conclusions. The findings from this study indicate that dentists in New Zealand are adapting to new materials and technologies to provide high quality care to their patients. Aesthetic treatments such as bleaching have become an integral part of general dental practice.

scholarly journals Water sorption of resin-modified glass-ionomer cements photoactivated with LED

2006 ◽  
Vol 20 (4) ◽  
pp. 342-346 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daniela Francisca Gigo Cefaly ◽  
Linda Wang ◽  
Liliam Lucia Carrara Paes de Mello ◽  
Janaína Lima dos Santos ◽  
Jean Rodrigo dos Santos ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Water Sorption ◽  
Resin Composite ◽  
Composite Resins ◽  
Glass Ionomer Cements ◽  
Glass Ionomer ◽  
Constant Mass ◽  
Light Emitting ◽  
Halogen Light ◽  
Resin Modified Glass Ionomer ◽  
Light Curing

The Light Emitting Diodes (LED) technology has been used to photoactivate composite resins and there is a great number of published studies in this area. However, there are no studies regarding resin-modified glass-ionomer cements (RMGIC), which also need photoactivation. Therefore, the aim of this study was to evaluate water sorption of two RMGIC photoactivated with LED and to compare this property to that obtained with a halogen light curing unit. A resin composite was used as control. Five specimens of 15.0 mm in diameter x 1.0 mm in height were prepared for each combination of material (Fuji II LC Improved, Vitremer, and Filtek Z250) and curing unit (Radii and Optilight Plus) and transferred to desiccators until a constant mass was obtained. Then the specimens were immersed into deionized water for 7 days, weighed and reconditioned to a constant mass in desiccators. Water sorption was calculated based on weight and volume of specimens. The data were analyzed by two-way ANOVA and Tukey test (p < 0.05). Specimens photocured with LED presented significantly more water sorption than those photocured with halogen light. The RMGIC absorbed statistically significant more water than the resin composite. The type of light curing unit affected water sorption characteristics of the RMGIC.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document