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 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.

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 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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document