Class II Restoration Using Bioactive Restorative Material vs Polyacid Modified Composite Resin in Primary Molars

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Keyword(s):  
Composite Resin ◽  
Class Ii ◽  
Primary Molars ◽  
Restorative Material

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.

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.

Microleakage and Shear Punch Bond Strength in Class II Primary Molars Cavities Restored with Low Shrink Silorane Based versus Methacrylate Based Composite using Three Different Techniques

2010 ◽  
Vol 35 (2) ◽  
pp. 173-181 ◽  
Author(s):  
Amal Ezzeldin Fahmy ◽  
Nadia Moustafa Farrag
Keyword(s):  
Composite Materials ◽  
Bond Strength ◽  
Adhesive Bonding ◽  
Composite Resin ◽  
Class Ii ◽  
Primary Molars ◽  
Resin Composites ◽  
Mode Of Failure ◽  
Shear Punch ◽  
Bonding Technique

Objectives: This in vitro study aimed to evaluate the gingival microleakage in class II cavities in primary molars restored with a low shrink silorane resin composite (Filtek P90) or a nanohybride composite resin(Filtek supreme XT) using three different techniques, (total bonding, closed or open sandwich techniques)lined by nano-filled resin modified glass ionomer cement RMGIC (Ketac N100). Additionally, the shear punch bond strength between the two types of composite and KN100 was also examined. Study design:For microleakage test, two standardized class II slot cavities were prepared in proximal surfaces of 60 sound extracted primary molars which were divided into 2 groups of 30 each according to the type of composite. Each group was subdivided into 3 groups (n = 10) according to the restorative technique used. The restored teeth were examined for microleakage after immersion in 2% methylene blue dye using stereomicroscope at 20 X. Microleakage scores among the groups were compared using Kruskal Wallis test followed by pair wise Mann Whitney U test at P ≤ 0.05. Thirty disc specimens were prepared for determining the shear punch bond strength between the two composite materials and the KN100. Specimens were divided into 5 groups (n = 6) according to the adhesive protocol. The differences in mean bond strength values in MPa between groups were statistically analyzed using ANOVA followed by pair wise Tukey Post hoc test at P ≤ 0.05.Mode of failure was also evaluated for all groups. Results: Both the silorane resin and nano-composite resin showed superior marginal seal with the total bonding technique compared to closed and open sandwich techniques. The recorded mean shear punch bond strength values showed no statistical significant difference between the two resin composites without or with their adhesive bonding systems when bonded to the nano-ionomer. All specimens showed cohesive mode of failures except for silorane resin with Adper Easy Bond Self Etch Adhesive (AEBSEA) which showed adhesive mode of failure. Conclusions: The best marginal seal was obtained with the total bonding technique using both resin composites. The shear punch bond strength between KN100 and the two composite materials was not affected by either of the used adhesive bonding agent.

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.

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.

Posterior composite restorations in primary molars: an in vivo comparison of three restorative techniques

2001 ◽  
Vol 25 (3) ◽  
pp. 227-230 ◽  
Author(s):  
Flávia Pilatti Rastelli ◽  
Ricardo de Sousa Vieira ◽  
Márcio Souza Rastelli
Keyword(s):  
Composite Resin ◽  
Clinical Performance ◽  
Adhesive System ◽  
Class Ii ◽  
In Vivo Study ◽  
Primary Molars ◽  
Marginal Adaptation ◽  
Insertion Technique ◽  
Bulk Insertion

This in vivo study evaluated the clinical performance of class II restorations, in primary molars after 12 months. Three restorative techniques were used: filling the cavities in bulk; filling with three horizontal increments and placement in three horizontal increments using pre-polymerized composite inserts. The composite resin used was Prisma TP.H (Caulk-Dentsply) with the adhesive system ScotchbondMultipurpose (3M). Initially 90 class II restorations were placed in 27 patients from 8 to 10 years of age and followed-up for 12 months. After this period 55 restorations were evaluated for anatomic form, color alterations at the margins, presence of decay and marginal adaptation. The results showed that all groups presented similar rates of wear, the bulk insertion technique showed better results for marginal adaptation, color alterations of the margins and less presence of caries at occlusal margins, and that composite resin TP.H could be used in class II restorations in primary molars.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document