scholarly journals A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF FREQUENCY OF RETENTION OF FLOWABLE NANOCLUSTER COMPOSITE AND RESIN MODIFIED GLASS IONOMER

2021 ◽  
Vol 71 (1) ◽  
pp. 299-303
Author(s):  
Hannan Humayun Khan ◽  
Mafaza Alam ◽  
Syed Muzammil Hussain Shah ◽  
Saman Mehmood ◽  
Ajmal Yousaf ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Comparative Study ◽  
Retention Rate ◽  
Armed Forces ◽  
Retention Rates ◽  
Filling Material ◽  
Glass Ionomer ◽  
Cervical Lesions ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Resin Modified Glass Ionomer ◽  
One Year

Objective: To investigate and compare the retention rates of Flowable-Nanocluster-Composite and Resinmodified-Glass-Ionomers in non-carious cervical lesions in maxillary molars. Study Design: Prospective cross-sectional comparative study. Place and Duration of Study: Department of Operative Dentistry, Armed Forces Institute of Dentistry,Rawalpindi, from Jan 2017 to Dec 2018. Methodology: Male patients ranging from 30-40 years with moderate non-carious cervical lesions of maxillarypremolars and molars of either quadrant presenting to out-patient department were selected through convenience sampling. These lesions were restored with Flowable-Nanocluster-Composite and Resin-Modified-GlassIonomer. Retention of these two materials over the period of 6 months, 1 year and 2 years was noted. Chi square statistics were used to compare groups. Results: The retention of Flowable-Nanocluster-Composite was 92% in 6 months, 85% in one year and 81% in two years. Whereas, for resin-modified-glass-ionomer restorations, the frequency of retention of the filling material was 97% at 6 months, 93% at one year and 89% at two years period. Out of the total 74 resin-modified-glassionomers restorations, 8 (11%) had dislodged by the end of the second year as compared to 14 (19%) dislodged restorations for Flowable-Nanocluster-Composite. Conclusion: In conclusion, the study reveals that resin modified glass-ionomer has a superior retention rate over the period of two years as compared to Flowable-Nanocluster Composite. A dentist should have an insight into compositions of restorative materials for the longevity of their retention in various lesions.

One-Year Clinical Evaluation of Two Resin Composites, Two Polymerization Methods, and a Resin-Modified Glass Ionomer in Non-Carious Cervical Lesions

2006 ◽  
Vol 7 (5) ◽  
pp. 42-53 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hervé Tassery ◽  
Stephen Koubi ◽  
Anne Raskin ◽  
Frédéric Bukiet ◽  
Christian Pignoly ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Surface Quality ◽  
Clinical Evaluation ◽  
Resin Composites ◽  
Glass Ionomer ◽  
Cervical Lesions ◽  
Acceptance Criterion ◽  
Dental Practitioners ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Resin Modified Glass Ionomer ◽  
One Year

Abstract Aim The aim of this study was to examine clinically relevant data on four restorative procedures for non-carious cervical lesions using United States Public Health Service (USPHS)–compatible clinical and photographic criteria and to compare different methods of analyzing clinical data. Methods and Materials Fourteen patients with at least one or two pairs of non-carious lesions under occlusion and a mean age of 50 were enrolled in this study. A total of 56 restorations (14 with each material) were placed by three experienced, calibrated dental practitioners. Two other experienced and calibrated practitioners, under single-blind conditions, followed up on all restorations for a period of one year. Three materials were randomly placed: a micro-hybrid composite with two polymerization methods (G1 and G2), a flowable micro-hydrid composite (G3), and a resin-modified glass ionomer (G4). Statistical analysis was performed using the Kruskall-Wallis test (p<0.05) and a Mann-Whitney U modified test with a corrected significance level. Results At the one year evaluation time, there were no restorations with secondary caries and the retention rates in G1 (IntenS with a hard polymerization), G2 (IntenS with a soft polymerization), G3 (Filtek flow), and G4 (Fuji II LC) were 85.7% (two losses), 92.8% (one loss), 100%, and 100%, respectively. The total visual microcomparison of the results at baseline (15 days later) showed significant differences only with the clinical acceptance criterion: G1 was different from G2, with a soft polymerization device (p<0.05). In terms of surface quality at one year, G1, G2, and G3 exhibited a statistically significant difference from G4, p<0.05. The digital analysis at baseline showed significant differences only with the clinical acceptance criterion: G1=G2 was different from G3=G4, p<0.05. At one year, only the microporosity criterion showed any statistical differences: G1=G2=G3 was different from G4, p<0.05. Conclusions The resin-modified glass ionomer was easier to use and had a high retention rate, but it failed in terms of surface quality (visual mode) and porosity (digital mode) criteria compared to the others groups. Overall results showed no difference between groups G1 (hard-polymerized) and G2 (soft-polymerized), and only G1 was affected by the marginal edge (p<0.03) and integrity criteria (p<0.02) at one year. Citation Koubi S, Raskin A, Bukiet F, Pignoly C, Toca E, Tassery H. One-Year Clinical Evaluation of Two Resin Composites, Two Polymerization Methods, and a Resin-Modified Glass Ionomer in Non-Carious Cervical Lesions. J Contemp Dent Pract 2006 November;(7)5:042-053.

scholarly journals Evaluation of the Clinical Behavior of Resin Modified Glass Ionomer Cement on Primary Molars: A Comparative One-year Study

2008 ◽  
Vol 9 (2) ◽  
pp. 130-137 ◽  
Author(s):  
A. R. Prabhaker ◽  
O. S. Raju ◽  
Ameet J. Kurthukoti ◽  
V. Satish
Keyword(s):  
Glass Ionomer Cement ◽  
Class I ◽  
Primary Molars ◽  
Lateral Side ◽  
Glass Ionomer ◽  
Clinical Behavior ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Resin Modified Glass Ionomer ◽  
One Year ◽  
Ionomer Cement

Abstract Aim The objectives of the present study were to evaluate and compare the clinical behavior of resin modified glass ionomer cement (RMGIC) on primary molars with conventional and modified cavity preparations. Methods and Materials Forty-two children, 5-9 years of age, having bilateral initial occlusal caries on the mandibular primary second molars were selected for the study. A split mouth design was employed where conventional Class I cavities with a 90° cavosurface angle were prepared randomly on primary second molars on one side and modified cavities with a 1 mm straight bevel along the cavosurface margin on the contra-lateral side. These cavities were restored with RMGIC. The restorations were evaluated during subsequent visits, for a period of one year. Results At the end of one year, 90% of the restorations survived in the conventional cavity group whereas 100% of the restorations survived in the modified cavity group. Conclusion Incorporation of a bevel in Class I cavities increases the survival rate of RMGIC restorations. There was no significant difference in the clinical behavior between the two groups. However, beveling does contribute to long term clinical success of these restorations. Clinical Significance Incorporation of a straight bevel in conventional cavities will improve the retention of RMGIC by increasing the bonding area and enhancing the desired properties of the material. Citation Prabhakar AR, Raju OS, Kurthukoti AJ, Satish V. Evaluation of the Clinical Behavior of Resin Modified Glass Ionomer Cement on Primary Molars: A Comparative One-year Study. J Contemp Dent Pract 2008 February;(9)2:130-137.

scholarly journals P258 Real-world secukinumab retention, response rates and adverse events in the treatment of PsA and axSpA

Rheumatology ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 59 (Supplement_2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Alistair Tindell ◽  
Saira Batool ◽  
Andrew McGucken ◽  
Stefan Siebert
Keyword(s):  
Adverse Events ◽  
Disease Activity ◽  
Real World ◽  
Retention Rate ◽  
Retention Rates ◽  
Hospital Death ◽  
Published Data ◽  
Cerebellar Haemorrhage ◽  
One Year ◽  
Randomised Controlled

Abstract Background Secukinumab, an IL-17A inhibitor, has been licensed for use in the United Kingdom for both axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) and psoriatic arthritis (PsA) for several years. Despite this there is minimal published data on its use out with randomised controlled trials. We present here the collated real-world rheumatology experience of secukinumab use in Glasgow. Methods Patients who have ever received secukinumab for any rheumatology indication were identified using available medical records (from 14/05/2012 to 18/09/2019). Diagnosis, baseline demographics, disease activity at baseline and at 6 months, and whether patients are still currently on secukinumab was recorded. Primary inefficacy was defined as stopping treatment due to inefficacy ≤6 months. Reasons for discontinuation were also recorded. As disease activity scores were variably recorded, the primary outcome was retention rate as a surrogate for efficacy and lack of adverse event. Patients only included in disease scores if scores available both at baseline and 6 months. Results 352 patients (with 530 patient-years of exposure) identified. 251 (71.3%) patients currently remain on secukinumab. 301 of 336 (89.6%) patients remained on drug at six-month review (16 await review). Characteristics and response of two main diagnostic groups listed in Table 1 (Note: 3 patients had SAPHO, 5 had Juvenile Idiopathic Arthritis, 1 had reactive arthritis). Common adverse events were infections (11 patients), rash and/or pruritis (6 patients), mood change and/or fatigue (4 patients). Three patients developed inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) subsequent to starting secukinumab. Five patients had pre-existing IBD, none of which flared on secukinumab. Two patients required hospitalisation for abscesses whilst on secukinumab. One patient had a stroke and one patient had a myocardial infarction whilst on secukinumab - both patients had multiple risk factors for cardiovascular disease. No malignancies identified. Three patients died, with none felt related to secukinumab (cerebellar haemorrhage in warfarinised patient with high INR; pneumonia six months after switching from secukinumab to tocilizumab; one out of hospital death over one year after stopping secukinumab). Conclusion In this real world cohort of patients with axSpA and PsA, secukinumab retention rates at 6 months are high with no new safety signals identified. Disclosures A. Tindell None. S. Batool None. A. McGucken None. S. Siebert Consultancies; S.S. has received speaker or consultation fees or honoraria from AbbVie, UCB, Janssen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Novartis, Celgene. Honoraria: S.S. has received speaker or consultation fees or honoraria from AbbVie, UCB, Janssen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Novartis, Celgene. Grants/research support; S.S has received funding for research/ grants from Pfizer, Janssen, BMS, Celgene, UCB, Boehringer Ingelheim, Novartis, GSK.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document