Three-year clinical evaluation of a resin modified glass-ionomer cement and a composite resin in non-carious class V lesions

2002 ◽  
Vol 29 (11) ◽  
pp. 1037-1041 ◽  
Author(s):  
G. Ozgunaltay ◽  
A. Onen
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Evaluation ◽  
Composite Resin ◽  
Glass Ionomer Cement ◽  
Glass Ionomer ◽  
Class V ◽  
Resin Modified Glass Ionomer ◽  
Ionomer Cement

scholarly journals PERBANDINGAN KEBOCORAN MIKRO PADA RESTORASI RESIN KOMPOSIT MIKROFILLER DENGAN RESIN-MODIFIED GLASS IONOMER CEMENT (RMGIC) PADA KAVITAS KLAS V GIGI ANTERIOR

2015 ◽  
Vol 3 (2) ◽  
pp. 83-91
Author(s):  
Thesi Kurnia Ayudia ◽  
Kuswardani Susari Putri ◽  
Ivony Fitria
Keyword(s):  
Composite Resin ◽  
Glass Ionomer Cement ◽  
Base Material ◽  
Glass Ionomer ◽  
Class V ◽  
Anterior Teeth ◽  
Group I ◽  
Resin Modified Glass Ionomer ◽  
Ionomer Cement

Microleakage defined as the clinically undetectable passage of bacteria, fluids, molecules or ions between a cavity wall and the restorative material. Microleakage tends to occur in Class V cavities. It is caused by  marginal adaptation  which is more difficult in class  V cavities. Microfiller composite resin is developed and indicated for areas that not require a large pressure. As the development of dental materials, it has been developed a composite resin base material that is known as resin-modified glass ionomer cement. This material has purposed to reduce the limitation of conventional glass ionomer cement and take the advantage of the composite resin material. The aim of this study was   to evaluate microleakage difference of microfiler composite resin restoration with resin-modified glass ionomer cement restorations in class V anterior teeth cavities.  The methode of this  study used experimental laboratory through in vitro process . Thirty two class V cavities were prepared on labial surfaces of extracted human anterior teeth. Samples were divided into two groups. Group I included sixteen samples that have had   restorated with microfiller composite. Group II included sixteen samples that have had restorated with resin-modified glass ionomer cement. The samples were immersed into aquabides solution for 24 hours. After that, the samples were immersed into 1% methylene blue solution for 24 hours. All samples sectioned longitudinally and analyzed for microleakage as dye penetration using a stereomicroscope. Student t-test were used for statistical analysis. The resulting data showed no significantly difference between two groups. Key Word : Microleakage, microfiller composite resin, resin-modified glass ionomer cement (RMGIC), class V cavities.

scholarly journals Microleakage after Thermocycling of Three Self-Etch Adhesives under Resin-Modified Glass-Ionomer Cement Restorations

2010 ◽  
Vol 2010 ◽  
pp. 1-6 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sabine O. Geerts ◽  
Laurence Seidel ◽  
Adelin I. Albert ◽  
Audrey M. Gueders
Keyword(s):  
Polyacrylic Acid ◽  
Glass Ionomer Cement ◽  
Adhesive System ◽  
Glass Ionomer ◽  
Class V ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Resin Modified Glass Ionomer ◽  
One Step ◽  
Self Etch ◽  
Ionomer Cement

This study was designed to evaluate microleakage that appeared on Resin-Modified Glass-Ionomer Cement (RMGIC) restorations. Sixty class V cavities () were cut on thirty extracted third molars, which were randomly allocated to three experimental groups. All the buccal cavities were pretreated with polyacrylic acid, whereas the lingual cavities were treated with three one-step Self-Etch adhesives, respectively, Xeno III (Dentsply Detrey GmbH, Konstanz, Germany), iBond exp (Heraeus Kulzer gmbH & Co. KG, Hanau, Germany), and Adper Prompt-L-Pop (3M ESPE AG, Dental products Seefeld, Germany). All cavities were completely filled with RMGIC, teeth were thermocycled for 800 cycles, and leakage was evaluated. Results were expressed as means standard deviations (SDs). Microleakage scores were analysed by means of generalized linear mixed models (GLMMs) assuming an ordinal logistic link function. All results were considered to be significant at the 5% critical level (). The results showed that bonding RMGIC to dentin with a Self-Etch adhesive rather than using polyacrylic acid did not influence microleakage scores (), except for one tested Self-Etch adhesive, namely, Xeno III (). Nevertheless, our results did not show any significant difference between the three tested Self-Etch adhesive systems. In conclusion, the pretreatment of dentin with Self-Etch adhesive system, before RMGIC filling, seems to be an alternative to the conventional Dentin Conditioner for the clinicians as suggested by our results (thermocycling) and others (microtensile tests).

Protective Effect of Resin Coating on the Microleakage of Class V Restorations Following Treatment with Carbamide Peroxide In Vitro

2010 ◽  
Vol 35 (6) ◽  
pp. 634-640 ◽  
Author(s):  
H. Yu ◽  
Q. Li ◽  
T. Attin ◽  
Y. Wang
Keyword(s):  
Protective Effect ◽  
Clinical Relevance ◽  
Glass Ionomer Cement ◽  
Glass Ionomer ◽  
Carbamide Peroxide ◽  
Class V ◽  
Resin Coating ◽  
Resin Modified Glass Ionomer ◽  
Ionomer Cement

Clinical Relevance Carbamide peroxide treatment increased the microleakage of Class V conventional glass-ionomer cement and resin modified glass-ionomer cement restorations. The resin coating is an effective method to avoid bleaching-induced microleakage without affecting the bleaching outcome.

scholarly journals What is the best protocol for bonding resin-modified glass ionomer cement to composite resin?

2015 ◽  
Vol 18 (2) ◽  
pp. 103 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daphne Camara Barcellos ◽  
Nicolas Petrucelli ◽  
Sérgio Eduardo de Paiva Gonçalves ◽  
Milena Traversa Palazon ◽  
Bianca Mitsue Goulart Sobue ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Composite Resin ◽  
Glass Ionomer Cement ◽  
Glass Ionomer ◽  
Resin Modified Glass Ionomer ◽  
Ionomer Cement

scholarly journals Effect of incorporation of nano-hydroxyapatite particles on the clinical performance of conventional and resin-modified glass ionomer cement in class V cavities: split-mouth, randomized controlled trial

2021 ◽  
Vol 45 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Zeinab M. Zaki ◽  
Maha A. Niazy ◽  
Mohamed H. Zaazou ◽  
Shaymaa M. Nagi ◽  
Dina W. Elkassas
Keyword(s):  
Surface Texture ◽  
Clinical Performance ◽  
Glass Ionomer Cement ◽  
Glass Ionomer ◽  
Class V ◽  
Resin Modified Glass Ionomer ◽  
Restorative Materials ◽  
Significant Change ◽  
Ionomer Cement

Abstract Background The aim of this study was to compare the clinical performance of Nano-hydroxyapatite-modified conventional glass ionomer cement (NHA-GIC) and Nano-hydroxyapatite-modified resin-modified glass ionomer cement (NHA-RMGIC) with conventional glass ionomer (CGIC) and resin-modified glass ionomer (RMGIC) in the treatment of caries class V cavities. Sixty patients with at least two cervical caries lesions participated in this study. A total of 120 class V cavities were prepared and then restored using different restorative materials. Restorations were clinically evaluated according to modified United States Public Health Service criteria at baseline and after 3, 6 and 9 months. Results There was no statistically significant difference in the clinical performance of the different restorative materials at any of the follow-up periods. However, throughout the study period there was a statistically significant change in the color match, surface texture and marginal integrity in NHA-GIC. A statistically significant change in the surface texture and marginal integrity was found in GIC. On the other hand, there was only a statistically significant change in surface texture in NHA-RMGIC. Conclusions All tested restorative materials, control (CGIC and RMGIC) as well as experimental (NHA-GIC and NHA-RMGIC), exhibited comparable clinical performance after 9 months follow-up.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document