Clinical Evaluation of Restorative Materials in Primary Teeth Class II Lesions

2015 ◽  
Vol 39 (4) ◽  
pp. 315-321 ◽  
Author(s):  
F Sengul ◽  
T Gurbuz
Keyword(s):  
Primary Teeth ◽  
Composite Resin ◽  
Clinical Success ◽  
Survival Rates ◽  
Glass Ionomer Cement ◽  
Class Ii ◽  
Biological Evaluation ◽  
Primary Molars ◽  
Chi Square ◽  
Restorative Materials

Objective: The aim of this study was to evaluate clinical success of primary teeth class II lesions restored with different restorative materials [Hybrid Composite Resin (HCR), Resin Modified Glass Ionomer Cement (RMGIC), compomer, and Giomer Composite Resin (GCR)] followed up for 24 months. Study Design: This study was carried out on 146 primary molars of 41 children in the age range of 5–7 years. The class II lesions in primary molars of a patient were restored using different restorative materials. Restorations were evaluated according to FDI-criteria and their survival rates were determined. Data were analysed with Pearson chi-square, Kaplan-Meier and Wilcoxon (Breslow) tests (α = 0.05). Results: The failure rates of restorative materials were as follows: compomer 33.3%, RMGIC 28.1%, HCR 22.5% and GCR 21.1%. Conclusions: While the functional failure was the most important factor in restorative material failure, RMGIC was the most successful material in terms of biological evaluation criterion and GCR had the longest survival rate.

A Retrospective Study of the 3-Year Survival Rate of Resin-Modified Glass-Ionomer Cement Class II Restorations in Primary Molars

2016 ◽  
Vol 40 (1) ◽  
pp. 8-13 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mark Webman ◽  
Ezat Mulki ◽  
Rosie Roldan ◽  
Oscar Arevalo ◽  
John F Roberts ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Survival Rate ◽  
Glass Ionomer Cement ◽  
Class Ii ◽  
Radiographic Evaluation ◽  
Primary Molars ◽  
Glass Ionomer ◽  
Design Data ◽  
Resin Modified Glass Ionomer ◽  
Restorative Materials ◽  
Ionomer Cement

Objective: To determine the three-year survival rate of Class II resin-modified glass-ionomer cement (RMGIC), Vitremer, restorations in primary molars and to compare these results with measurements of survival of Class II restorations of standard restorative materials. Study Design: Data on Class II restorations placed in primary molars during a six-year period were collected through a chart review and radiographic evaluation in the office of a board-certified pediatric dentist. A radiograph showing that the restoration was intact was required at least 3 years after placement to qualify as successful. If no radiograph existed, the restoration was excluded. If the restoration was not found to be intact radiographically or was charted as having been replaced before three years it was recorded as a failure. The results of this study were then compared to other standard restorative materials using normalized annual failure rates. Results: Of the 1,231 Class II resinmodified glass-ionomer cement restorations placed over six years 427 met the inclusion criteria. There was a 97.42% survival rate for a 3-year period equivalent to an annual failure rate of 0.86%. Conclusions: A novel approach comparing materials showed that in this study Vitremer compared very favorably to previously published success rates of other standard restorative materials (amalgam, composite, stainless steel crown, compomer) and other RMGIC studies.

scholarly journals Efficacy of Two Methods for Restorative Materials’ Removal in Primary Teeth

2011 ◽  
Vol 12 (5) ◽  
pp. 372-378 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daniela Gonçalves Bittar ◽  
Christiana Murakami ◽  
Daniela Hesse ◽  
José Carlos Pettorossi Imparato ◽  
Fausto Medeiros Mendes
Keyword(s):  
High Speed ◽  
Primary Teeth ◽  
Composite Resin ◽  
Primary Molars ◽  
Restorative Material ◽  
Tooth Structure ◽  
Restorative Materials ◽  
Structural Loss ◽  
Composite Resin Restorations ◽  
Amalgam Restorations

ABSTRACT Aim This in vitro study aimed to compare the time required for removal, the presence of residues of restorative material, tooth structure loss and dental surface morphology after removal of composite resin and amalgam restorations from occlusal cavities in primary molars using conventional high-speed bur and CVDentus® ultrasonic diamond tips. Materials and methods A total of 37 primary molars were allocated into four groups: Group 1 (n=9)—amalgam restorations removed using high-speed bur; Group 2 (n=10)—amalgam restorations removed using ultrasonic tip; Group 3 (n=8)— composite resin restorations removed using high-speed bur; Group 4 (n=10)—composite resin restorations removed using ultrasonic tip. After being restored, teeth were sectioned and analyzed through stereoscopic microscope images before and after restoration removal. The structural loss was analyzed by software of image analysis, and an examiner assessed for the presence of residues. Scanning electron microscopy was used to evaluate the morphology. Time and structural loss values were compared using ANOVA, and the percentages of samples with residues using Fisher test. Results There was no statistically significant difference in the tooth structure loss among different methods and restorative materials, as well as in the presence of residues of restorative material. However, diamond burs were faster than the ultrasonic method for both materials. Differences in dental morphology were observed between the methods of restoration removal, but not related to the restorative material. Conclusion Both conventional high-speed bur and ultrasonic diamond tip methods remove similar amounts of tooth structure, but the removal performed with diamond tips in ultrasonic devices is slower. Clinical significance This study shows that both ultrasonic and conventional high-speed bur methods for removing restorations generate similar loss of sound dental tissue, but the former is slower. How to cite this article Bittar DG, Murakami C, Hesse D, Imparato JCP, Mendes FM. Efficacy of Two Methods for Restorative Materials’ Removal in Primary Teeth. J Contemp Dent Pract 2011;12(5):372-378.

scholarly journals Can onlay's be an alternative restoration for severely damaged primary teeth

2017 ◽  
Vol 11 (01) ◽  
pp. 048-052 ◽  
Author(s):  
Begum Gok Coban ◽  
Zuhal Kirzioglu ◽  
Ayse Ceren Altun
Keyword(s):  
Primary Teeth ◽  
Composite Resin ◽  
Clinical Success ◽  
Clinical Success Rate ◽  
Primary Molars ◽  
Original Form ◽  
Study Results ◽  
Usphs Criteria ◽  
Indirect Technique

ABSTRACT Objective: The aim of this study was to evaluate indirect compomer and composite resin onlay restorations of severely damaged primary molars in vivo. Materials and Methods: At the study, 48 restorations, in seven girls and ten boys totally 17 patients aged 4–8, was evaluated clinically with using USPHS criteria for 15 months. Results: The study results revealed that the clinical success rate of compomer and composite onlay restorations was 79% and 96%, respectively. No significant differences were found statistically between the materials. Conclusions: In the children severely damaged primary molars, onlays are usually worked with an indirect technique in clinics. One of the advantages of indirect technique is being most similar to its original form morphologically.

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

scholarly journals Comparative Evaluation of Microleakage in Class II Cavity in Primary Molars Restored With Glass Ionomer Cement, Zirconomer, and Cention N Using Stereomicroscope: An In Vitro Study

2021 ◽  
Vol 13 (1) ◽  
pp. 6-12
Author(s):  
Harshali P Patil ◽  
Jasmin J Winnier
Keyword(s):  
Glass Ionomer Cement ◽  
Class Ii ◽  
Occlusal Surface ◽  
Primary Molars ◽  
Blue Dye ◽  
Restorative Material ◽  
Glass Ionomer ◽  
Group I ◽  
Restorative Materials ◽  
Ionomer Cement

Background: Microleakage is defined as the passage of bacteria, fluid, molecules or ions between the cavity walls and restorative material. There are limited studies in the literature that have compared the microleakage of the newer restorative materials. Therefore, the aim of this study is to compare and evaluate microleakage in Class II cavity in primary molars restored with glass ionomer cement, zirconomer and cention N using stereomicroscope. Method: Standardized Class II cavities were prepared on the extracted primary molars All the prepared samples were divided into 3 experimental groups and were restored as follows: Group I- GIC (GC Universal Restorative); Group II- Zirconomer (SHOFU Inc., Kyoto, Japan) and Group III- Cention-N (Ivoclar Vivadent). The restored teeth were thermocycled, immersed in methylene blue dye and sectioned along the mesiodistal direction. The dye penetration at the occlusal surface and cervical surface was evaluated and compared using a stereo-microscope. Data was analysed using Krushal-Wallis test (Non-parametric ANOVA). Results: Among the three restorative materials, Cention N as compared to GIC and Zirconomer showed least microleakage at both the occlusal surface and cervical surface. Conclusion: Cention N a newer restorative material displayed lesser microleakage as compared to GIC and Zirconomer.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document