Randomized Clinical Trial of Heated High Viscosity Glass Ionomer Class II Restorations in Deciduous Molars: 12 Months Follow Up

Year 2022, Volume: 12 Issue: 2, 514 - 520, 30.06.2022

Muesser Ahu Durhan Figen Eren Giray Elif Bahar Tuna İnce Tamer Tuzuner Arzu Yetkiner Nazan Ersin Betul Kargul

https://doi.org/10.33808/clinexphealthsci.997219

Abstract

Objective: New generation High Viscosity Glass Ionomer Cements (HVGICs) have enhanced physical and mechanical properties. By effectively closing the restoration margin, it ensures that the restorations will last longer. The aim of this study was to investigate the clinical performances of heat-cured versus non heated HVGIC in class II restorations of deciduous molars.
Methods: This randomized, split mouth, multicentre study was performed in four different centres. A total of 250 deciduous molars from 88 individuals were randomly allocated to one of the following groups: 1) non-heated (n = 125) 2) heated (n = 125) and restored with a HVGIC using LED light for heat application. Restorations were clinically evaluated according to the modified USPHS at the baseline, 6 months and 12 months. The survival analysis was performed by Kaplan Meier and Life Tables. This study was retrospectively registered to the ClinicalTrials.gov with the ID number of NCT04291872 at 2nd March 2020.
Results: No statistically significant differences were found between the groups regarding to modified USPHS criteria (p>0.05). Success rate in retention criteria was 94.1% of the heat-cured and 92.6% of the non-heated restorations after 12 months. The mean survival time was 11.8 ±0.1 months in the heated group, while 11.9±0.1 months in the non-heated group.
Conclusion: The heat treated HVGIC for Class II restorations did not show any significant differences in 12 months’ follow-up compared with the conventional technique.

Keywords

Dental caries, Glass ionomer cement, Deciduous tooth

References

• [1] Hafshejani TM, Zamanian A, Venugopal JR, Rezvani Z, Sefat F, Saeb MR, Vahabi H, Zarrintaj P, Mozafari M. Antibacterial glass-ionomer cement restorative materials: a critical review on the current status of extended release formulations. J Control Release. 2017;262:317-28.
• [2] Klinke T, Daboul A, Turek A, Frankenberger R, Hickel R, Biffar R. Clinical performance during 48 months of two current glass ionomer restorative systems with coatings: a randomized clinical trial in the field. Trials. 2016;17(1):239.
• [3] Tal E, Kupietzky A, Fuks AB, Tickotsky N, Moskovitz M. Clinical performance of heat-cured high-viscosity glass ionomer class II restorations in primary molars: a preliminary study. J Clin Pediatr Dent. 2017;41(4):264-270.
• [4] Gurgan S, Kutuk ZB, Ergin E, Oztas SS, Cakir FY. Clinical performance of a glass ionomer restorative system: a 6-year evaluation. Clin Oral Investig. 2017;21(7):2335-243.
• [5] de Amorim RG, Leal SC, Frencken JE. Survival of atraumatic restorative treatment (ART) sealants and restorations: a meta analysis. Clin Oral Investig. 2012;16(2):429-441.
• [6] Tedesco TK, Calvo AF, Lenzi TL, Hesse D, Guglielmi CA, Camargo LB, Gimenez T, Braga MM, Raggio DP. ART is an alternative for restoring occlusoproximal cavities in primary teeth – evidence from an updated systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Paediatr Dent. 2017;27(3):201-209.
• [7] Yap AU, Cheang PH, Chay PL. Mechanical properties of two restorative reinforced glass-ionomer cements. J Oral Rehabil. 2002;29(7):682-688.
• [8] Nicholson JW. Maturation processes in glass-ionomer dental cements. Acta Biomater Odontol Scand. 2018;4(1):63-71.
• [9] van Duinen RN. New approach for handling glass ionomers in restorative dentistry. Refuat Hapeh Vehashinayim (1993). 2011;28(3):8-13, 68.
• [10] Kupietzky A, Atia Joachim D, Tal E, Moskovitz M. Long-term clinical performance of heat-cured high-viscosity glass ionomer class II restorations versus resin-based composites in primary molars: a randomized comparison trial. Eur Arch Paediatr Dent. 2019;20(5):451-456.
• [11] Algera TJ, Kleverlaan CJ, de Gee AJ, Prahl-Andersen B, Feilzer AJ. The influence of accelerating the setting rate by ultrasound or heat on the bond strength of glass ionomers used as orthodontic bracket cements. Eur J Orthod. 2005;27(5):472- 476.
• [12] Gorseta K, Glavina D. Thermo-cured glass ionomer cements in restorative dentistry. J Istanb Univ Fac Dent. 2017;51(3 Suppl 1):122-127.
• [13] Gorseta K, Glavina D, Skrinjaric I. Influence of ultrasonic excitation and heat application on the microleakage of glass ionomer cements. Aust Dent J. 2012;57(4):453-457.
• [14] Gavic L, Gorseta K, Glavina D, Czarnecka B, Nicholson JW. Heat transfer properties and thermal cure of glass-ionomer dental cements. J Mater Sci Mater Med. 2015;26(10):249.
• [15] Yazici AR, Muftu A, Kugel G. Temperature rise produced by different light-curing units through dentin. J Contemp Dent Pract. 2007;8(7):21-28.
• [16] Schulz KF, Altman DG, Moher D, Group C. CONSORT 2010 statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. Int J Surg. 2011;9(8):672-677.
• [17] Gerlis L. Good clinical practice in clinical research. Lancet. 1989;1(8645):1008-1009.
• [18] Hubel S, Mejare I. Conventional versus resin-modified glass ionomer cement for Class II restorations in primary molars. a 3-year clinical study. Int J Paediatr Dent. 2003;13(1):2-8.
• [19] Casagrande L, Dalpian DM, Ardenghi TM, Zanatta FB, Balbinot CE, Garcia-Godoy F, De Araujo FB. Randomized clinical trial of adhesive restorations in primary molars. 18-month results. Am J Dent. 2013;26(6):351-355.
• [20] Baloch F, Mirza A, Baloch D. An in-vitro study to compare the microhardness of glass ionomer cement set conventionally versus set under ultrasonic waves. Int J Health Sci (Qassim). 2010;4(2):149-155.
• [21] Kleverlaan CJ, van Duinen RN, Feilzer AJ. Mechanical properties of glass ionomer cements affected by curing methods. Dent Mater. 2004;20(1):45-50.
• [22] Menne-Happ U, Ilie N. Effect of heat application on the mechanical behaviour of glass ionomer cements. Clin Oral Investig. 2014;18(2):643-650.
• [23] Skrinjaric K, Vranic DN, Glavina D, Skrinjaric I. Heat-treated glass ionomer cement fissure sealants: retention after 1 year follow-up. Int J Paediatr Dent. 2008;18(5):368-373.
• [24] Fabian Molina G, Cabral RJ, Mazzola I, Brain Lascano L, Frencken JE. Biaxial flexural strength of high-viscosity glass ionomer cements heat-cured with an LED lamp during setting. Biomed Res Int. 2013; 838460
• [25] van Duinen RN, Shahid S, Hill R, Glavina D. In-vitro study on temperature changes in the pulp chamber due to thermo-cure glass ionomer cements. Acta Stomatol Croat. 2016;50(4):287- 291.
• [26] Zhang W, Chen X, Fan MW, Mulder J, Huysmans MC, Frencken JE. Do light cured ART conventional high-viscosity glass ionomer sealants perform better than resin-composite sealants: a 4-year randomized clinical trial. Dent Mater. 2014;30(5):487-492.
• [27] Wendt LK, Koch G, Birkhed D. Replacements of restorations in the primary and young permanent dentition. Swed Dent J. 1998;22(4):149-155.
• [28] Deepa G, Shobha T. A clinical evaluation of two glass ionomer cements in primary molars using atraumatic restorative treatment technique in India: 1 year follow up. Int J Paediatr Dent. 2010;20(6):410-418.
• [29] Freitas M, Fagundes TC, Modena K, Cardia GS, Navarro MFL. Randomized clinical trial of encapsulated and hand-mixed glass-ionomer ART restorations: one-year follow-up. J Appl Oral Sci. 2018;26:e20170129.
• 30] Hussainy SN, Nasim I, Thomas T, Ranjan M. Clinical performance of resin-modified glass ionomer cement, flowable composite, and polyacid-modified resin composite in noncarious cervical lesions: one-year follow-up. J Conserv Dent. 2018;21(5):510- 515
• [31] de Franca Lopes CMC, Schubert EW, Martins AS, Loguercio AD, Reis A, Chibinski ACR, Wambier DS. Randomized clinical trial of ART class II restorations using two glass ionomer cements: one-year follow-up. Pediatr Dent. 2018;40(2):98-104