scholarly journals Clinical Performance of Viscous Glass Ionomer Cement in Posterior Cavities over Two Years

2009 ◽  
Vol 2009 ◽  
pp. 1-7 ◽  
Author(s):  
Roland Frankenberger ◽  
Franklin Garcia-Godoy ◽  
Norbert Krämer
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Performance ◽  
Glass Ionomer Cement ◽  
Class Ii ◽  
Class I ◽  
Prospective Clinical Study ◽  
Glass Ionomer ◽  
Gap Formation ◽  
Kaplan Meier ◽  
Ionomer Cement ◽  
Over Time

In this controlled prospective clinical study the highly viscous glass ionomer cement Ketac Molar was clinically assessed in Class I and Class II cavities. Forty-nine subjects (mean age 32.3 years) received 108 restorations placed by six operators in conventional Black I and II type cavities with undercuts after excavating primary lesions or after removing insufficient restorations. At baseline, and after 6, 12, and 24 months, restorations were assessed by two independent investigators according to modified USPHS codes and criteria. Impressions of the restorations were taken and epoxy replicas were made. Between the baseline and the 24-month recall, 51 representative samples were analyzed at 130 × magnification by use of a stereo light microscope (SLM). Recall rates were 83% after 6 months, 50% after 12 months, and 24% after 24 months. Failure rates after 24 months were 8% for Class I and 40% for Class II fillings, mainly due to bulk fracture at occlusally loaded areas (Kaplan Meier survival analysis). Significant changes over time were found for the criteria “surface roughness”, “marginal integrity”, “restoration integrity”, and “overall judgement” (P<.05; Friedman test). SLM analysis revealed statistically significant differences for the following criteria over time (baseline/6 months/12 months (in % of entire evaluable margin length);P<.05; Friedman 2-way ANOVA): perfect margin 37/19/11, negative step formation 26/49/57, gap formation 2/7/9, and overhang 24/11/8. Replicas exhibited mainly negative step formation as main finding due to apparently inferior wear resistance (P<.05). Gap formations were more frequently observed in Class II restorations than in Class I (12% versus 3% after 12 months;P<.05, Mann-Whitney-Utest). The evaluated margin lengths were not statistically different (P>.05, Friedman 2-way ANOVA).

Two-Year Clinical Evaluation of Three Restorative Materials in Primary Molars

2009 ◽  
Vol 34 (1) ◽  
pp. 53-58 ◽  
Author(s):  
Maha Daou ◽  
Bruno Tavernier ◽  
Jean-Marc Meyer
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Performance ◽  
Glass Ionomer Cement ◽  
Class Ii ◽  
Class I ◽  
Glass Ionomer Cements ◽  
Glass Ionomer ◽  
High Caries Risk ◽  
Resin Modified Glass Ionomer ◽  
Amalgam Restorations ◽  
Ionomer Cement

A variety of alternatives to amalgam are now available for use in Class I and Class II restorations in primary teeth, including glass ionomer cements, compomers and resin modified glass ionomer cements(RMGIC). Objectives: This study evaluated the two-year clinical performance of three restorative dental materials: A resin modified glass ionomer cement (Fuji IILC), a compomer (Dyract AP) and a high viscosity glass ionomer cement (Fuji IX), in primary molars of pediatric patients with high caries risk activity and compared these results to those reported for amalgam restorations. Study design: One hundred and forty nine Class I and Class II cavities in 45 patients aged 6 to 8 years were restored with compomer, glass ionomer cements and amalgam. Restorations were evaluated according to modified Ryge criteria by two examiners at baseline, and after 6, 12, 18 and 24 months of oral function. The data was submitted to statistical analysis (binomial and hyper geometric tests, p&lt;0.05). Results: Two-year recall rate was 62.42%. Class I performed better than class II restorations. The difference in marginal discoloration between compomer and amalgam restorations was statistically significant (p=0.014). No other significant differences were found between GIC, compomer and amalgam restorations. The clinical performance of the three restorative materials compared to amalgam in Class I and Class II cavities at two-year recall was acceptable.Conclusions: The results, even in a population with high caries risk activity, suggest that these materials are suitable alternatives to amalgam in Class I and Class II restorations in primary teeth.

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

2017 ◽  
Vol 41 (4) ◽  
pp. 264-270 ◽  
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.

A One-Year Clinical Evaluation of a High-Viscosity Glass Ionomer Cement in Primary Molars

2006 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
pp. 71-78 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yucel Yilmaz ◽  
Özge Eyuboglu ◽  
Mutlu Elcin Kocogullari ◽  
Nihal Belduz
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Evaluation ◽  
Glass Ionomer Cement ◽  
Class Ii ◽  
High Viscosity ◽  
Class I ◽  
Primary Molars ◽  
Glass Ionomer ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
One Year ◽  
Ionomer Cement

Abstract In this study one-year clinical results of high-viscosity glass ionomer cement (GIC) (Fuji IX, A3, GC, Japan) were determined in class I and class II restorations in 68 primary molars with occlusal or approximal caries. Following caries removal and cavity preparation, the teeth were restored with Fuji IX. The restorations were evaluated according to the U.S. Public Health Service's (USPHS) criteria at the end of one year. Statistical analyses of the data obtained were analyzed using the X2 test. The evaluations showed no statistically significant difference between class I and class II restorations in terms of the color mismatch, anatomic form, marginal adaptation, and secondary caries (P>0.05), but they were statistically significant with regard to cavosurface marginal discoloration (P<0.05). At the end of one year, the success rate of the class I and class II restorations of the primary molars restored with Fuji IX was 94%. Citation Yilmaz Y, Eyuboglu Ö, Kocogullari ME, Belduz M. A One-Year Clinical Evaluation of a High-Viscosity Glass Ionomer Cement in Primary Molars. J Contemp Dent Pract 2006 February;(7)1:071-078.

scholarly journals Clinical performance of glass ionomer cement and composite resin in Class II restorations in primary teeth: A systematic review and meta-analysis

2018 ◽  
Vol 73 ◽  
pp. 1-13 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ana Giselle Aguiar Dias ◽  
Marcela Baraúna Magno ◽  
Alberto Carlos Botazzo Delbem ◽  
Robson Frederico Cunha ◽  
Lucianne Cople Maia ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Primary Teeth ◽  
Composite Resin ◽  
Clinical Performance ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Glass Ionomer Cement ◽  
Class Ii ◽  
Glass Ionomer ◽  
Ionomer Cement

Microleakage of class II restoration with zirconia inlay: An in vitro study

2019 ◽  
pp. 61-67
Author(s):  
Xuan Anh Ngoc Ho ◽  
Anh Chi Phan ◽  
Toai Nguyen
Keyword(s):  
Glass Ionomer Cement ◽  
Class Ii ◽  
Resin Cement ◽  
Glass Ionomer ◽  
Resin Modified Glass Ionomer ◽  
Group 2 ◽  
Self Etch ◽  
Ionomer Cement ◽  
Group 1 ◽  
Composite Restoration

Background: Class II restoration with zirconia inlay is concerned by numerous studies about the luting coupling between zirconia inlay and teeth. The present study was performed to evaluate the microleakage of Class II zirconia inlayusing two different luting agents and compare to direct restoration using bulk fill composite. Aims: To evaluate the microleakage of Class II restorations using three different techniques. Materials and methods: The study was performed in laboratory with three groups. Each of thirty extracted human teeth was prepared a class II cavity with the same dimensions, then these teeth were randomly divided into 3 groups restored by 3 different approaches. Group 1: zirconia inlay cemented with self-etch resin cement (Multilink N); Group 2: zirconia inlay cemented with resin-modified glass ionomer cement (Fuji Plus); Group 3: direct composite restoration using bulk fill composite(Tetric N-Ceram Bulk Fill). All restorations were subjected to thermal cycling (100 cycles 50C – 55 0C), then immersed to 2% methylene blue solution for 24 hours. The microleakage determined by the extent of dye penetration along the gingival wall was assessed using two methods: quantitative and semi-quantitative method. Results: Among three types of restorations, group 1 demonstrated the significantly lower rate of leakage compared to the others, while group 2 and 3 showed no significant difference. Conclusion: Zirconia inlay restoration cemented with self-etch resin cement has least microleakage degree when compare to class II zirconia inlay restoration cemented with resin-modified glass ionomer cement and direct composite restoration using bulk fill composite. Key words: inlay, zirconia ceramic, class II restoration, microleakage.

scholarly journals In vitro quantitative evaluation of marginal microleakage in class II restorations confected with a glass ionomer cement and two composite resins

2001 ◽  
Vol 15 (4) ◽  
pp. 277-282 ◽  
Author(s):  
Maria Fernanda Borro BIJELLA ◽  
Maria Francisca Thereza Borro BIJELLA ◽  
Salete Moura Bonifácio da SILVA
Keyword(s):  
Glass Ionomer Cement ◽  
Class Ii ◽  
Deionized Water ◽  
Composite Resins ◽  
Glass Ionomer ◽  
Dye Penetration ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Distal Direction ◽  
Ionomer Cement

This study evaluated, in vitro, marginal microleakage in class II restorations confected with the glass ionomer cement Vitremer and with the composite resins Ariston pHc and P-60. The aims of the study were to assess the effect of thermocycling on those materials and to evaluate two methods utilized in the analysis of dye penetration. Sixty premolars divided in three groups were utilized; the teeth had proximal cavities whose cervical walls were located 1 mm below the cementoenamel junction. Half of the test specimens from each group underwent thermocycling; the other half remained in deionized water, at 37ºC. The specimens were immersed, for 24 hours, in a basic 0.5% fuchsin solution at 37ºC. For the analysis of microleakage, the specimens were sectioned in a mesio-distal direction, and the observation was carried out with the software Imagetools. The results were evaluated through the 2-way ANOVA and through the Tukey’s test. All groups presented marginal microleakage. The smallest values were obtained with Vitremer, followed by those obtained with the composite resins P-60 and Ariston pHc. There was no statistically significant difference caused by thermocycling, and the method of maximum infiltration was the best for detecting the extension of microleakage.

scholarly journals Proximal retention grooves may increase early fracture strength of ART restorations

2019 ◽  
Vol 22 (1) ◽  
pp. Process
Author(s):  
Érica Fernandes ◽  
Maria Cristina Freitas ◽  
Paula Oltramani-Navarro ◽  
Ricardo Navarro ◽  
Rafael Menezes-Silva ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Fracture Resistance ◽  
Glass Ionomer Cement ◽  
Class Ii ◽  
Test Machine ◽  
Retention Data ◽  
Glass Ionomer ◽  
Solution Ph ◽  
Nail Polish ◽  
Edta Solution ◽  
Ionomer Cement

Objective: To evaluate the fracture resistance (RF) of Class II Glass-ionomer Cement (GIC) ART restorations with and without proximal retentions. Material and Methods: 20 freshly extracted human molars were used. Forty (40) standard Mesial-Occlusal (MO) and Distal-Occlusal (DO) preparations (20 for each material) were performed with a 245 bur. The unprepared surfaces of the teeth were protected with nail polish and the specimens submerged in 0.5Mol EDTA solution, pH 7.4 for 8h under stirring. The preparations were finished with dentine spoons and 50% received proximal retention with # 3 excavators. 20 cavities were restored with Chemfil Rock (10 with retention and 10 without retention) and 20 cavities were restored with Equia Fil (10 with retention and 10 with no retention) and were stored in an oven at 37ºC and 100% relative humidity for 24h and submitted to axial compression loading in Test Machine - EMIC at a rate of 0.5 mm / minute, until restoration fracture occurred. The values were analyzed by two-way ANOVA (p<0.05). Results: ChemFil Rock presented 300.84 (69.20) (without retention) and 361.70 (81.08) (with retention) and Equia Fil showed 314.60 (69.97) (without retention) and 366.67 (103.38) (with retention). Data obtained with retention were statistically superior to those obtained with non-retained ART restorations (p=0.014). No statistical differences were detected between materials (p=0.761). Conclusion: Retentive grooves improved fracture resistance of Class II GIC ART restorations. KeywordsDental materials; ART; Glass ionomer cements.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document