A Prospective Six-Year Clinical Study Evaluating Reinforced Glass Ionomer Cements with Resin Coating on Posterior Teeth: Quo Vadis?

2016 ◽  
Vol 41 (6) ◽  
pp. 587-598 ◽  
Author(s):  
LS Türkün ◽  
Ö Kanik
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Performance ◽  
Retention Rate ◽  
Marginal Adaptation ◽  
Glass Ionomer Cements ◽  
Glass Ionomer ◽  
Color Match ◽  
Posterior Teeth ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Usphs Criteria ◽  
Quo Vadis

SUMMARY Objective: The aim of this study was to evaluate the long-term clinical performance of two encapsulated glass ionomer cements (GICs) (EquiaFil and Riva SC) covered with two different coatings (Equia Coat and Fuji Varnish) over six years using modified US Public Health Service (USPHS) criteria. Methods: Fifty-four patients having class I and II restorations/caries were included in the study. A total of 256 restorations were made with EquiaFil and Riva SC. Equia Coat or Fuji Varnish was used randomly on the surface of the restorations. After cavity preparations, the teeth were randomly restored with one GIC and coated with Equia Coat or Fuji Varnish. The restorations were evaluated at baseline; six, 12, and 18 months; and six years after placement using modified USPHS criteria. Two evaluators checked color match, marginal discoloration, marginal adaptation, caries formation, anatomical form, postoperative sensitivity, and retention rate, and photographs were taken at each recall. The results were evaluated with Pearson chi-square and Mann-Whitney U-test (p<0.05). Results: Thirty-seven patients were evaluated. There was a significant difference between EquiaFil and Riva SC regarding retention rate and color match after six years (p=0.033 and 0.046). When comparing baseline to six years, the overall success of EquiaFil was better than Riva SC, having significant problems regarding retention rate and anatomical form (p=0.016 and 0.031). Class II cavities were significantly worse in marginal adaptation, anatomical form, and retention rate in the Riva SC groups (p=0.033, 0.015, and 0.007) but not in the EquiaFil groups. The combination of the coatings had no effect on the overall success of the materials. Conclusions: The EquiaFil system was more successful than Riva SC regarding color match, marginal adaptation, anatomic form, and retention rate after a six-year clinical evaluation period.

scholarly journals One-Year Clinical Evaluation of the Bonding Effectiveness of a One-Step, Self-Etch Adhesive in Noncarious Cervical Lesion Therapy

2015 ◽  
Vol 2015 ◽  
pp. 1-5 ◽  
Author(s):  
Babacar Faye ◽  
Mouhamed Sarr ◽  
Khaly Bane ◽  
Adjaratou Wakha Aidara ◽  
Seydina Ousmane Niang ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Performance ◽  
Retention Rate ◽  
Recall Rate ◽  
Acid Etching ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Usphs Criteria ◽  
One Step ◽  
One Year ◽  
The One ◽  
Self Etch

This study evaluated the one-year clinical performance of a one-step, self-etch adhesive (Optibond All-in-One, Kerr, CA, USA) combined with a composite (Herculite XRV Ultra, Kerr Hawe, CA, USA) to restore NCCLs with or without prior acid etching. Restorations performed by the same practitioner were evaluated at baseline and after 3, 6, and 12 months using modified USPHS criteria. At 6 months, the recall rate was 100%. The retention rate was 84.2% for restorations with prior acid etching, but statistically significant differences were observed between baseline and 6 months. Without acid etching, the retention rate was 77%, and no statistically significant difference was noted between 3 and 6 months. Marginal integrity (93.7% with and 87.7% without acid etching) and discoloration (95.3% with and 92.9% without acid etching) were scored as Alpha or Bravo, with better results after acid etching. After one year, the recall rate was 58.06%. Loss of pulp vitality, postoperative sensitivity, or secondary caries were not observed. After one year retention rate was of 90.6% and 76.9% with and without acid conditioning. Optibond All-in-One performs at a satisfactory clinical performance level for restoration of NCCLs after 12 months especially after acid etching.

scholarly journals Clinical Performance of Composite Restorations with Resin-modified Glass Ionomer Lining in Root Surface Carious Lesions

2016 ◽  
Vol 41 (3) ◽  
pp. 268-275 ◽  
Author(s):  
U Koc Vural ◽  
S Gökalp ◽  
A Kiremitci
Keyword(s):  
Significant Relationship ◽  
Repeated Measures ◽  
Clinical Performance ◽  
Retention Rate ◽  
Root Surface ◽  
Marginal Adaptation ◽  
Glass Ionomer ◽  
Composite Restorations ◽  
Carious Lesions ◽  
Resin Modified Glass Ionomer

SUMMARY Objective: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the clinical performance of composite restorations in root surface carious lesions with or without resin-modified glass ionomer lining. Methods and Materials: The sample consisted of 25 female and 14 male patients. A maximum of four lesions were included for each patient. After caries removal, the depth, length, and width of the cavity were measured. Lesions in the same patient were randomly divided into two groups, and the dentin surfaces were either lined with resin-modified glass ionomer liner (Glass Liner II) or left as they were. Self-etch adhesive (All Bond SE) was applied and cured for 20 seconds. All cavities were restored with nanohybrid anterior composite resin (Clearfil Majesty Esthetic). Two experienced clinicians evaluated the marginal adaptation (retention) rate, anatomic form, secondary caries, sensitivity, and marginal staining of restorations at the end of the first week and at six, 12, and 18 months posttreatment. The data were statistically analyzed using the Chi-square and two-way repeated measures tests. Results: At the end of 18 months, a total of five lined and three unlined restorations were lost. There was no significant relationship between marginal adaptation and cavity lining at six, 12, and 18 months (p>0.05). Although marginal stainings of restorations were mostly localized, the total number of localized or generalized discolored restorations increased with time (p<0.001). There was a statistically significant relationship between marginal staining and smoking (p>0.05). There was no significant relationship between marginal staining and frequency of toothbrushing at six, 12, and 18 months (p=0.286, p=0.098, and p=0.408, respectively). Conclusion: Within the limitations of this study, both restorative applications were accepted as clinically appropriate.

scholarly journals Bond Strength of Self-Adhesive Flowable Composites and Glass Ionomer Cements to Primary Teeth: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of In Vitro Studies

Materials ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 14 (21) ◽  
pp. 6694
Author(s):  
Flavia Iaculli ◽  
Alessandro Salucci ◽  
Gianni Di Giorgio ◽  
Valeria Luzzi ◽  
Gaetano Ierardo ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Bond Strength ◽  
Primary Teeth ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Deciduous Teeth ◽  
Glass Ionomer Cements ◽  
Glass Ionomer ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Flowable Composites

Background: Conventional composites are largely used in pediatric restorative dentistry and demonstrate successful clinical outcomes. However, the need for simplification of operative steps in young or uncooperative children demands reliable alternatives. Therefore, the aim of the present systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate the in vitro bond strength of glass ionomer cements (GICs) and self-adhesive flowable composites (SFCs) on deciduous teeth. Methods: A comprehensive literature search according to the PRISMA checklist was manually and electronically performed by two independent reviewers through the following databases: MEDLINE/PubMed, Google Scholar, Scopus, and Embase, to include in vitro studies comparing GICs and SFCs bond strength values of restorations on primary teeth. In addition, three groups of meta-analyses were conducted using random-effects models. Results: Three articles meeting the inclusion criteria were selected and subjected to both qualitative and quantitative assessment. No statistically significant difference was found between SFC versus GIC; however, both groups significantly differed with conventional flowable composites (CFs). Conclusions: Despite the absence of significant difference in bond strength values, SFCs may be considered a valid alternative to GICs in the restoration of deciduous teeth, although CFs proved better in vitro performances.

scholarly journals A pilot trial on lithium disilicate partial crowns using a novel prosthodontic Functional Index for Teeth (FIT)

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Edoardo Ferrari Cagidiaco ◽  
Simone Grandini ◽  
Cecilia Goracci ◽  
Tim Joda
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Performance ◽  
Pilot Trial ◽  
Lithium Disilicate ◽  
Bone Biology ◽  
Functional Index ◽  
Posterior Teeth ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Group 2 ◽  
Technical Complication ◽  
Level Of Significance

Abstract Background Lithium disilicate is now a well accepted material for indirect restorations. The aim of this trial was to evaluate two lithium disilicate systems using a novel prosthodontic Functional Index for Teeth (FIT).Methods Partial adhesive crowns on natural abutment posterior teeth were made on sixty patients (clinicaltrial.gov # NCT 01835821). Patients were divided into two groups: Group 1 e.max press (Ivoclar), Group 2 LiSi press (GC Co.). The restorations were followed-up for 3 years. The FIT is composed of seven variables (Interproximal, Occlusion, Design, Mucosa, Bone, Biology and Margins), each of them to be evaluated using a 0-1-2 scoring scheme. The Mann-Whitney ‘U’ test was applied. The level of significance was set at p<0,05.Results Survival rate was 100%, without any biological or technical complication. No statistically significant difference emerged between the two groups in any of the assessed variables (p>0.05).Conclusions The results showed that it is possible to evaluate the clinical performance of partial crowns using FIT. The FIT proved to be an effective tool to foresee the possible risk of failures and to monitor the performance of the restorations at each recall. The two lithium dislocate materials showed same results after 3 years of clinical service.

scholarly journals Clinical research of the restoration efficacy in tunnel preparation restored with cermet glass-ionomer cements

2005 ◽  
Vol 52 (1) ◽  
pp. 46-54
Author(s):  
Milica Popovic
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Research ◽  
Surface Structure ◽  
Permanent Teeth ◽  
Marginal Adaptation ◽  
Glass Ionomer Cements ◽  
Glass Ionomer ◽  
Observational Period ◽  
Material Preparations ◽  
Age Range ◽  
Ionomer Cement

The aim of this study was to evaluate clinical efficacy of tunnel restorations over 18-month observational period. Methods and material: Preparations were restored with glass-cermet-ionomer cement (Ketac-silver, DMG, Scandinavien AB). A total of 90 restorations were placed in 72 patients with age range 21-54 years old. Evaluation was carried out by clinical and radiographical means. Modified Cvar and Ryge criteria were used for evaluation j of marginal adaptation, marginal discoloration, surface structure, secondary caries and marginal ridge. Results: Fracture of marginal ridge was recorded in 4,7% of the restorations. No secondary aries or marginal discoloration were recorded. Conclusion: The results indicate that tunnel glass cermet ionomer cement restorations are useful in small proximal dentine lesions in permanent teeth. .

Dental Cements

1988 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
pp. 134-141 ◽  
Author(s):  
D.C. Smith
Keyword(s):  
Zinc Phosphate ◽  
Clinical Performance ◽  
Biological Properties ◽  
Fluoride Release ◽  
Glass Ionomer Cements ◽  
Glass Ionomer ◽  
Laboratory Measurements ◽  
Acid Dissolution ◽  
Luting Agents ◽  
Unchanged Form

The manifold uses of dental cements-as (a) luting agents, (b) cavity linings and bases, and (c) restorations for teeth—make them perhaps the most important materials in clinical dentistry. The research of the last 10 years has resulted in four main types, classified by matrix-forming species: (1) phosphate, (2) phenolate, (3) polycarboxylate, and (4) polymethacrylate. The zinc phosphate cements continue to be widely used for luting in an essentially unchanged form. Acidity and oral dissolution remain as problems. The zinc-oxide eugenol cements and their modifications are useful as linings and temporary materials but are susceptible to hydrolytic breakdown. Vanillate cements may be an improvement. Calcium hydroxide-salicylate cements are widely used as cavity linings, especially on exposures, and show improved resistance to acid dissolution. Polycarboxylate cements as both zinc polycarboxylate and glass-ionomer cements show adhesion potential, good physical properties, fluoride release, and, generally, good biological properties. Glass-ionomer cements when correctly manipulated show minimal oral dissolution. Polymethacrylate cements have been used principally for bonding etched cast metal restorations to etched enamel. Recently, adhesive crown-and-bridge cements have been developed. There are no well-established correlations between laboratory measurements of apparently relevant properties and clinical performance. More clinically-based research is needed to facilitate the development of new cements.

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.

A Two-year Clinical Comparison of Three Different Restorative Materials in Class II Cavities

2020 ◽  
Vol 45 (1) ◽  
pp. E32-E42 ◽  
Author(s):  
H Balkaya ◽  
S Arslan
Keyword(s):  
Composite Resin ◽  
Clinical Performance ◽  
Class Ii ◽  
High Viscosity ◽  
Glass Ionomer ◽  
Secondary Caries ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Composite Resin Restorations ◽  
Postoperative Sensitivity ◽  
Resin Restorations

SUMMARY Objectives: The aim of this clinical study was to evaluate the clinical performance of Class II restorations of a high-viscosity glass ionomer material, of a bulk-fill composite resin, and of a microhybrid composite resin. Methods and Materials: One hundred nine Class II restorations were performed in 54 patients using three different restorative materials: Charisma Smart Composite (CSC; a conventional composite resin), Filtek Bulk Fill Posterior Restorative (FBF; a high-viscosity bulk-fill composite), and Equia Forte Fil (EF; a high-viscosity glass ionomer). Single Bond Universal adhesive (3M ESPE, Neuss, Germany) was used for both conventional and bulk-fill composite resin restorations. The restorations were evaluated using modified US Public Health Service criteria in terms of retention, color match, marginal discoloration, anatomic form, contact point, marginal adaptation, secondary caries, postoperative sensitivity, and surface texture. The data were analyzed using the chi-square, Fisher, and McNemar tests. Results: Eighty-four restorations were evaluated at two-year recalls. There were clinically acceptable changes in composite resin restorations (FBF and CSC). In addition, no statistically significant difference was observed between the clinical performances of these materials in terms of all criteria (p&gt;0.05). However, there was a statistically significant difference between the EF group and the FBF and CSC groups in all parameters except for marginal discoloration, secondary caries, and postoperative sensitivity (p&lt;0.05). Conclusions: The tested bulk-fill and conventional composite resins showed acceptable clinical performance in Class II cavities. However, if EF is to be used for Class II restoration, its use should be carefully considered.

24-Month Clinical Evaluation of Different Bulk-Fill Restorative Resins in Class II Restorations

2020 ◽  
Vol 45 (2) ◽  
pp. 123-133
Author(s):  
T Guney ◽  
AR Yazici
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Performance ◽  
Evaluation Criteria ◽  
Class Ii ◽  
Recall Rate ◽  
Marginal Adaptation ◽  
Chi Square ◽  
Posterior Group ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Chi Square Test ◽  
Molar Teeth

SUMMARY The objective of this study was to evaluate the 24-month clinical performance of three different bulk-fill restorative resin materials in class II restorations. Forty patients with at least three approximal lesions in premolar and molar teeth participated in the study. A total of 120 class II cavities were restored using Tetric EvoCeram Bulk Fill (n=40), SureFil SDR flow + Ceram.X mono (n=40), and everX Posterior + G-aenial Posterior (n=40) with their respective adhesives according to the manufacturers' instructions. All restorations were placed by one operator. The restorations were evaluated at baseline and at six, 12, 18, and 24 months using modified US Public Health Service criteria by one examiner. The restoration groups for each category were compared using the Pearson chi-square test, while the Cochran Q-test was used to compare the changes across different time points within each restorative material (p&lt;0.05). At the end of 24 months, 94 restorations were evaluated in 33 patients, with a recall rate of 82.5%. There were no statistically significant differences between the groups in terms of retention (p&gt;0.05). At the 24-month recall, two restorations from the SureFil SDR flow + Ceram.X mono group and four from the everX Posterior + G-aenial Posterior group showed slight marginal discoloration and were rated as bravo. No marginal discoloration was observed in any of the Tetric EvoCeram Bulk Fill restorations. Six restorations from the Tetric EvoCeram Bulk Fill group, six from the SureFil SDR flow + Ceram.X mono group, and 12 from the everX Posterior + G-aenial Posterior group received bravo scores in terms of marginal adaptation. No difference was found among the three groups for any of the evaluation criteria tested (p&gt;0.05). There were statistically significant differences between the baseline and 24-month recall in the everX Posterior + G-aenial Posterior group in terms of marginal discoloration (p&lt;0.05). For marginal adaptation, a significant difference was observed between baseline and 24 months for all the restorative resins (p&lt;0.05). All the restorative resins tested performed similarly and showed acceptable clinical performance during the 24-month evaluation.

Marginal adaptation of glass-ionomer cements

1983 ◽  
Vol 49 (3) ◽  
pp. 356-360 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anna B. Fuks ◽  
Zvia Hirschfeld ◽  
Rafael Grajower
Keyword(s):  
Marginal Adaptation ◽  
Glass Ionomer Cements ◽  
Glass Ionomer
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document