scholarly journals Seven-Year Clinical Performance of Resin Composite Versus Resin-Modified Glass Ionomer Restorations in Noncarious Cervical Lesions

2014 ◽  
Vol 39 (6) ◽  
pp. 578-587 ◽  
Author(s):  
TC Fagundes ◽  
TJE Barata ◽  
E Bresciani ◽  
SL Santiago ◽  
EB Franco ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Performance ◽  
Resin Composite ◽  
Glass Ionomer ◽  
Retention Performance ◽  
Cervical Lesions ◽  
Composite Restorations ◽  
Marginal Integrity ◽  
Etch And Rinse ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Resin Modified Glass Ionomer

SUMMARY Purpose The purpose of this study was to comparatively assess the seven-year clinical performance of a one-bottle etch-and-rinse adhesive with resin composite (RC) and resin-modified glass ionomer (RMGI) restorations in noncarious cervical lesions. Methods and Materials One operator placed 70 restorations (35 restorations in each group) in 30 patients under rubber dam isolation without mechanical preparation. The restorations were directly assessed by two independent examiners, using modified US Public Health Service criteria at baseline and 6, 12, 24, 60, and 84 months. The obtained data were tabulated and statistically analyzed using the Fisher and McNemar tests. A difference was significant if p<0.05. Results Twenty patients were available for recall after seven years (66.6%), and 25 RC and 26 RMGI restorations out of 70 restorations were evaluated. Excellent agreement was registered for all criteria between examiners (κ≥0.85). Alfa and bravo scores were classified as clinically acceptable. The McNemar test detected significant differences within RC restorations between baseline and seven-year evaluations for anatomic form, marginal integrity, and retention (p<0.05). For RMGI restorations, a significant difference was identified for marginal integrity (p<0.05). As to material comparison, the Fisher exact showed a better retention performance for RMGI restorations than for RC restorations (p<0.05). Twelve composite restorations were dislodged (52.0% retention) and three ionomer restorations were lost (88.5% retention). The cumulative success rate for RC and RMGI was 30% and 58.1%, respectively. Conclusions After seven years of service, the clinical performance of RMGI restorations was superior to that of the adhesive system/resin composite restorations in this study.

Randomized Clinical Trial of Adhesive Restorations in Non Carious Cervical Lesions

2016 ◽  
Vol 695 ◽  
pp. 3-11 ◽  
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.

5-year Clinical Performance of Resin Composite Versus Resin Modified Glass Ionomer Restorative System in Non-carious Cervical Lesions

10.2341/05-87 ◽  
2006 ◽  
Vol 31 (4) ◽  
pp. 403-408 ◽  
Author(s):  
E. B. Franco ◽  
A. R. Benetti ◽  
S. K. Ishikiriama ◽  
S. L. Santiago ◽  
J. R. P. Lauris ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Relevance ◽  
Clinical Performance ◽  
Resin Composite ◽  
Glass Ionomer ◽  
Cervical Lesions ◽  
Class V ◽  
Resin Modified Glass Ionomer ◽  
Term Evaluation ◽  
Materials Behavior

Clinical Relevance A long-term evaluation of the materials' behavior is relevant for Class V restorations in which clinical performance is particularly challenging.

Effect of Postoperative Bleaching on Marginal Leakage of Resin Composite and Resin-Modified Glass Ionomer Restorations at Different Delayed Periods of Exposure to Carbamide Peroxide

2009 ◽  
Vol 10 (6) ◽  
pp. 9-16 ◽  
Author(s):  
Horieh Moosavi ◽  
Marjaneh Ghavamnasiri ◽  
Vahideh Manari
Keyword(s):  
Resin Composite ◽  
Wilcoxon Test ◽  
Filling Material ◽  
Glass Ionomer ◽  
Carbamide Peroxide ◽  
Control Groups ◽  
Human Teeth ◽  
Composite Restorations ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Resin Modified Glass Ionomer

Abstract Aim To evaluate the effect of dental bleaching with carbamide peroxide at different exposure times on the microleakage of resin composite and resin-modified glass ionomer restorations after placement in extracted human teeth. Methods and Materials 120 Class V cavity preparations were placed at the cementoenamel junction (CEJ) of human teeth. Half of the cavities were restored with Filtek P60 resin composite(C) and the other half were restored with Fuji II LC resin-modified glass ionomer (G). Each group was randomly divided into four subgroups (n=15). Groups C1 and G1 were not bleached and stored in artificial saliva at 37°C to serve as control groups, while in Groups C2 and G2, C3 and G3, and C4 and G4 specimens were exposed to a 15% carbamide peroxide gel for one day, one week, and two weeks, respectively, following the placement of restorations. Microleakage was assessed using the dye penetration method. Data were analyzed using the Kruskal-Wallis and Wilcoxon tests (p=0.05). Results The Kruskal-Wallis test showed no significant difference among all groups of composite or glass ionomer restorations with either enamel or dentinal margins with regard to microleakage (p>0.05). The Wilcoxon test revealed more marginal leakage in the enamel/ glass ionomer margins than the enamel/ composite margins (p<0.05). In comparisons within each group, the Wilcoxon test showed there was more microleakage in dentinal margins of composite restorations than in the enamel margins in the test groups (p<0.05). The dentinal margins of the glass ionomer in control groups showed more leakage than the enamel margins, but after the bleaching procedure all experimental groups showed statistically similar microleakage in both the enamel and dentinal margins (p>0.05). Conclusions Postoperative bleaching with carbamide peroxide could increase microleakage in the dentinal margins of composite and the enamel margins of resin-modified glass ionomer restorations. Clinical Significance Rebonding of resin composite restorations should be considered following bleaching with 15% carbamide peroxide in order to reseal the margins. Resin-modified glass ionomer is not suitable as a filling material before bleaching because of its susceptibility to increased microleakage. Citation Moosavi H, Ghavamnasiri M, Manari V. Effect of Postoperative Bleaching on Marginal Leakage of Resin Composite and Resin-Modified Glass Ionomer Restorations at Different Delayed Periods of Exposure to Carbamide Peroxide. J Contemp Dent Pract [Internet]. 2009 Nov; 10(6):009-016. Available from: http://www.thejcdp. com/journal/view/volume10-issue6-moosavi.

scholarly journals Two-year clinical evaluation of resinous restorative systems in non-carious cervical lesions

2010 ◽  
Vol 21 (3) ◽  
pp. 229-234 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sérgio Lima Santiago ◽  
Vanara Florêncio Passos ◽  
Alessandra Helen Magacho Vieira ◽  
Maria Fidela de Lima Navarro ◽  
José Roberto Pereira Lauris ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Performance ◽  
Retention Rate ◽  
Resin Composite ◽  
Glass Ionomer Cement ◽  
Controlled Clinical Trial ◽  
Cervical Lesions ◽  
Exact Test ◽  
Marginal Integrity ◽  
Bonding System ◽  
Etch And Rinse

This controlled clinical trial evaluated the 2-year clinical performance of a one-bottle etch-and-rinse adhesive and resin composite system (Excite/Tetric Ceram) compared to a resin-modified glass ionomer cement (RMGIC) (Vitremer/3M) in non-carious cervical lesions. Seventy cervical restorations (35 resin composite - RC- restorations and 35 RMGIC restorations) were placed by a single operator in 30 patients under rubber dam isolation without mechanical preparation. All restorations were evaluated blindly by 2 independent examiners using the modified USPHS criteria at baseline, and after 6, 12 and 24 months. Data were analyzed statistically by Fisher's exact and McNemar tests. After 2 years, 59 out of 70 restorations were evaluated. As much as 78.8% retention rate was recorded for RC restorations, while 100% retention was obtained for RMGIC restorations. Fisher's exact test showed significant differences (p=0.011) for retention. However, there were no significant differences for marginal integrity, marginal discoloration, anatomic form and secondary caries between the RC and RMGIC restorations. The McNemar test detected significant differences for Excite/TC between baseline and the 2-year recall for retention (p=0.02), marginal integrity (p=0.002) and anatomic form (p=0.04). Therefore, the one-bottle etch-and-rinse bonding system/resin composite showed an inferior clinical performance compared to the RMGIC.

scholarly journals Effect of Postoperative Bleaching on Marginal Leakage of Resin Composite and Resin-Modified Glass Ionomer Restorations at Different Delayed Periods of Exposure to Carbamide Peroxide

2009 ◽  
Vol 10 (6) ◽  
pp. 1-8
Author(s):  
Horieh Moosavi ◽  
Marjaneh Ghavamnasiri ◽  
Vahideh Manari
Keyword(s):  
Resin Composite ◽  
Wilcoxon Test ◽  
Filling Material ◽  
Glass Ionomer ◽  
Carbamide Peroxide ◽  
Control Groups ◽  
Human Teeth ◽  
Composite Restorations ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Resin Modified Glass Ionomer

Abstract Aim To evaluate the effect of dental bleaching with carbamide peroxide at different exposure times on the microleakage of resin composite and resin-modified glass ionomer restorations after placement in extracted human teeth. Methods and Materials 120 Class V cavity preparations were placed at the cementoenamel junction (CEJ) of human teeth. Half of the cavities were restored with Filtek P60 resin composite(C) and the other half were restored with Fuji II LC resin-modified glass ionomer (G). Each group was randomly divided into four subgroups (n=15). Groups C1 and G1 were not bleached and stored in artificial saliva at 37°C to serve as control groups, while in Groups C2 and G2, C3 and G3, and C4 and G4 specimens were exposed to a 15% carbamide peroxide gel for one day, one week, and two weeks, respectively, following the placement of restorations. Microleakage was assessed using the dye penetration method. Data were analyzed using the Kruskal-Wallis and Wilcoxon tests (p=0.05). Results The Kruskal-Wallis test showed no significant difference among all groups of composite or glass ionomer restorations with either enamel or dentinal margins with regard to microleakage (p>0.05). The Wilcoxon test revealed more marginal leakage in the enamel/ glass ionomer margins than the enamel/ composite margins (p<0.05). In comparisons within each group, the Wilcoxon test showed there was more microleakage in dentinal margins of composite restorations than in the enamel margins in the test groups (p<0.05). The dentinal margins of the glass ionomer in control groups showed more leakage than the enamel margins, but after the bleaching procedure all experimental groups showed statistically similar microleakage in both the enamel and dentinal margins (p>0.05). Conclusions Postoperative bleaching with carbamide peroxide could increase microleakage in the dentinal margins of composite and the enamel margins of resin-modified glass ionomer restorations. Clinical Significance Rebonding of resin composite restorations should be considered following bleaching with 15% carbamide peroxide in order to reseal the margins. Resin-modified glass ionomer is not suitable as a filling material before bleaching because of its susceptibility to increased microleakage. Citation Moosavi H, Ghavamnasiri M, Manari V. Effect of Postoperative Bleaching on Marginal Leakage of Resin Composite and Resin-Modified Glass Ionomer Restorations at Different Delayed Periods of Exposure to Carbamide Peroxide. J Contemp Dent Pract [Internet]. 2009 Nov; 10(6):009-016. Available from: http://www.thejcdp. com/journal/view/volume10-issue6-moosavi.

COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF RESTORATIVE TREATMENTS ON NON-CARIOUS CERVICAL LESIONS OF COMPOSITE AND GLASS IONOMER CEMENT

2020 ◽  
pp. 38-45
Author(s):  
Duong Nguyen Thi Thuy ◽  
Huong Nguyen Thi Kim
Keyword(s):  
Glass Ionomer Cement ◽  
Glass Ionomer ◽  
Cervical Lesions ◽  
Composite Restorations ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Composite Glass ◽  
Group 2 ◽  
Ionomer Cement ◽  
Group 1

Background: Composite and Glass ionomer cement (GIC) are common restorative materials of non carious cervical lesions (NCCLs), which effects are controverisial. The aim of the present study was to compare the result of restorations on NCCLs between Composite and GIC. Materials and Methods: follow-up clinical trial with split-mouth design. Thirty-six patients with 96 NCCLs were divided into 2 groups (n=48/group): Group 1 restored by Composite, Group 2 restored by GIC. The restorations were evaluated at baseline, 1 and 3 months for pulpal sensitivity, restoration morphology and overall success grade. Results: GIC restorations gained 100% Good results for all parameters at 3 time points. Composite showed 87.5%, 93.8% and 97.9% Good results at baseline, 1 and 3 months, sequentially. At 3 weeks recall, 1 Composite restorations (2.1%) showed Moderate results of Retention and 2 Composite restorations (4.2%) changed colour. Conclusions: There was no statistically significant difference seen among the three groups for 3 parameters. Key words: non-carious cervical lesion, Composite, Glass ionomer cement

Catechin-based Dentin Pretreatment and the Clinical Performance of a Universal Adhesive: A Two-year Randomized Clinical Trial

2020 ◽  
Vol 45 (5) ◽  
pp. 473-483 ◽  
Author(s):  
CAGA Costa ◽  
NLG Albuquerque ◽  
JS Mendonça ◽  
AD Loguercio ◽  
VPA Saboia ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Randomized Clinical Trial ◽  
Clinical Performance ◽  
Resin Composite ◽  
Retention Rates ◽  
Marginal Adaptation ◽  
Single Bond ◽  
Etch And Rinse ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Self Etch

Clinical Relevance At 24 months, the dentin pretreatment with epigallocatechin-3-gallate did not impair the clinical performance of the adhesive Single Bond Universal regardless of the bonding strategy used. SUMMARY Purpose: To evaluate the two-year effect of dentin pretreatment with epigallocatechin-3-gallate (EGCG) on the clinical performance of restorations of noncarious cervical lesions (NCCLs) with Single Bond Universal, applied in two different modes (self-etch and etch-and-rinse). Methods and Materials: In this randomized clinical trial, 33 volunteers were selected, and 156 NCCLs were assigned to four groups: ER, etch-and-rinse; ER-EGCG, 0.1% EGCG dentin pretreatment + etch-and-rinse; SE, self-etch; and SE-EGCG, 0.1% EGCG dentin pretreatment + self-etch. The NCCLs were restored with a nanofilled resin composite and evaluated at baseline and at six, 12, 18, and 24 months using FDI criteria for retention, marginal staining, marginal adaptation, caries, and postoperative sensitivity. Two evaluators were blinded to the treatments performed, and impressions were taken for resin replicas to allow indirect observations. Statistical analyses were performed with Kruskal-Wallis and McNemar tests with a significance level of 5%. Results: Six restorations (one from ER, two from SE, one from ER-EGCG, and two from SEEGCG) were lost at 24 months with no significant differences (p&gt;0.05). The retention rates were 97.0% (ER and ER-EGCG), 94.1% (SE), and 94.2% (SE-EGCG). For marginal adaptation, a significant difference was detected between the baseline and 24 months for the SE group (p=0.0313). There were no statistical differences among all other evaluated criteria at 24 months, neither for each group at baseline nor for 24-month comparisons (p&gt;0.05). Conclusions: The pretreatment with EGCG provided no benefit in the clinical performance of the adhesive regardless of the bonding strategy used. In addition, it adds an additional required step to the restorative procedure.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document