A split-mouth randomized clinical trial of single crowns retained with resin-modified glass-ionomer and zinc phosphate luting cements

ABSTRACT Introduction This study was planned to find the solubility of the conventional luting cements in comparison with that of the polyacid-modified composite luting cement and recently introduced resin-modified glass ionomer cement (RMGIC) with exposure to water at early stages of mixing. Materials and methods An in vitro study of the solubility of the following five commercially available luting cements, viz., glass ionomer cement (GIC) (Fuji I, GC), zinc phosphate (Elite 100, GC), polyacid-modified resin cement (PMCR) (Principle, Dentsply), polycarboxylate cement (PC) (Poly - F, Dentsply), RMGIC (Vitremer, 3M), was conducted. For each of these groups of cements, three resin holders were prepared containing two circular cavities of 5 mm diameter and 2 mm depth. All the cements to be studied were mixed in 30 seconds and then placed in the prepared cavities in the resin cement holder for 30 seconds. Results From all of the observed luting cements, PMCR cement had shown the lowest mean loss of substance at all immersion times and RMGIC showed the highest mean loss of substance at all immersion times in water from 2 to 8 minutes. The solubility of cements decreased by 38% for GIC, 33% for ZnPO4, 50% for PMCR, 29% for PC, and 17% for RMGIC. Conclusion The PMCR cement (Principle-Dentsply) had shown lowest solubility to water at the given time intervals of immersion. This was followed by PC, zinc phosphate, and GIC to various time intervals of immersion. How to cite this article Karkera R, Nirmal Raj AP, Isaac L, Mustafa M, Reddy RN, Thomas M. Comparison of the Solubility of Conventional Luting Cements with that of the Polyacid Modified Composite Luting Cement and Resin-modified Glass Ionomer Cement. J Contemp Dent Pract 2016;17(12):1016-1021.

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

Resin-Modified Glass Ionomer Varnish Versus Acidulated Phosphorus Fluoride Gel in Prevention of White Spot Lesions During Comprehensive Orthodontic Treatment (Split Mouth Randomized Clinical Trial) (A Comparative Study)

Acta Scientific Dental Scienecs ◽

10.31080/asds.2020.04.0974 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 4 (12) ◽

pp. 03-12

Author(s):

Mohamed Zidan ◽

Fouad Aly ElSharaby ◽

Eman Mohie El-Din El-Sayed

Keyword(s):

Clinical Trial ◽

Comparative Study ◽

Randomized Clinical Trial ◽

Orthodontic Treatment ◽

White Spot ◽

White Spot Lesions ◽

Glass Ionomer ◽

Resin Modified Glass Ionomer

Download Full-text

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.

Journal Of Oral Research ◽

10.17126/joralres.2021.029 ◽

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.

Download Full-text