24-Month Clinical Performance Evaluation of A Current Glass-lonomer Restorative System

Year 2011, Volume: 38 Issue: 2 - Volume: 38 Issue: 2, 53 - 62, 01.05.2011

Esra Fırat Sevil Gürgan Zeynep Bilge Kütük Filiz Yalçın Çakır Sema Seval Öztas

Abstract

Objective: The aim of this study was to evaluate the 24-month clinical performance of a current glass-ionomer restorative system by comparing with a micro-filled resin composite, on Class II cavities. Methods: Sixty cavities in 26 patients were randomly divided into two groups according to the restorative systems used n=30 ; the cavities in Group 1 were restored with a glass-ionomer restorative system EQUIA/GC ; packable glassionomer Fuji IX GP EXTRA/GC +self-adhesive nano-filled coating G-Coat PLUS/GC ; whereas the ones in Group 2 were restored with a microfilled composite Gradia Direct/GC +a self-etch adhesive G-Bond/GC . The restorations were evaluated at 1 week baseline , 6, 12, 18 and 24 months according to the modified USPHS criteria. The data were statistically evaluated by Pearson Chi-Square test p=0. 05 . Results: At 24 month recall, 53 restorations were reviewed in 23 patients. Retention rates, anatomic form, seconder caries, surface texture, post-operative sensitivity and color match were scored as Alpha for all restorations in two groups. Two restorations in Group 1 and 5 restorations in Group 2 were scored as Bravo for marginal discoloration; whereas 4 restorations in Group 1 and 8 restorations in Group 2 were scored as Bravo for marginal adaptation. However, the differences in terms of marginal adaptation and marginal discoloration were not statistically significant p>0. 05 . Conclusions: At the end of 24 months, the clinical performance of glass-ionomer restorative system was as efficacious as the micro-filled composite resin system

Keywords

Glass-ionomer cement, surface coating performance agent, composite resin, clinical

Güncel bir cam iyonomer restoratif sistemin 24-aylık klinik performansının değerlendirilmesi

Abstract

Amaç: Bu çalışmada, güncel bir camiyonomer restoratif sistemin II. sınıf kavitelerdeki 24-aylık klinik performansını, mikro-dolduruculu bir kompozit rezinle kıyaslayarak değerlendirilmek amaçlanmıştır. Bireyler ve Yöntem: Yirmi altı hastadaki toplam 60 II. sınıf kavite, kullanılan restoratif sisteme göre rastgele iki gruba ayrılmıştır n=30 . Grup 1’deki kavitelere cam iyonomer restoratif sistem EQUIA/GC ; kondanse edilebilir camiyonomer Fuji IX GP EXTRA+self-adeziv nano-dolduruculu yüzey örtücü G-Coat PLUS; Grup 2’deki kavitelere ise, mikro-dolduruculu kompozit rezin Gradia Direct/GC +self-etch adeziv GBond/GC uygulanmıştır. Restorasyonlar uygulandıktan 1 hafta sonra başlangıçta ve 6.,12.,18. ve 24. aylarda modifiye USPHS kriterlerine göre değerlendirilmiş, elde edilen veriler Pearson Kikare testi ile istatistiksel olarak analiz edilmiştir p=0. 05 . Bulgular: 24. ayda, 23 hastada 53 restorasyon değerlendirilmiştir. Retansiyon, anatomik form, sekonder çürük, yüzey yapısı, post-operatif duyarlılık ve renk uyumu yönünden her iki grupta tüm restorasyonlar Alfa olarak skorlanmıştır. Grup 1’de 2, Grup 2’de 5 restorasyonun kenar renklenmesi; Grup1’de 4, Grup 2’de ise 8 restorasyonun kenar uyumu Bravo olarak skorlanmıştır. Ancak, kenar renklenmesi ve kenar uyumu kriterlerine göre gruplar arasındaki farklılıklar istatistiksel olarak anlamlı değildir p>0. 05 . Sonuçlar: 24 ay sonunda, II. Sınıf kavitelerin restorasyonunda cam-iyonomer sistemin klinik performansı, mikro-dolduruculu kompozit rezin sistemi kadar başarılı bulunmuştır.

Keywords

Cam-iyonomer siman, yüzey örtücü ajan, kompozit rezin, klinik performans

References

• ) de Andrade AK, Duarte RM, Medeiros e Silva FD, Batista AU, Lima KC, Pontual ML, Montes MA. 30-month randomised clinical trial to evaluate the clinical materials: a 7-year report.
• ) Loguercio AD, Reis A, Rodrigues Filho LE, Busato AL. One-year clinical evaluation composite 2001;26(5):427-34. packable Oper Dent restorations.
• ) Ernst CP, Martin M, Stuff S, Willershausen B. Clinical performance of a packable resin composite for posterior teeth after 2001;5(3):148-55. Clin Oral Investig
• ) Gordan VV, Mondragon E, Watson RE, Garvan C, Mjör IA. A clinical evaluation of a self-etching primer and a giomer restorative material: results at eight years. J Am Dent Assoc 2007 May;138(5):621-7
• ) Uzer Çelik E, Ermiş B. Koruyucu rezin uygulamasının yüksek viskoziteli gele- neksel cam iyonomer simanın mikrosertliği üzerine etkisinin in vitro olarak değerlendiril- mesi. Cumhuriyet Üniversitesi Diş Hekimliği Fakültesi Dergisi 2008: 11-2.
• ) Bağlar S, Dallı M, Çolak H, Ercan E, M. Hamidi M.M. iki farklı restoratif materya- lin sınıf V kavitelerdeki mikrosızıntıya etkisi. Cumhuriyet Dental Journal 2010: 13-1.
• ) Friedl K, Hiller KA, Friedl KH. Clinical performance of a newglass ionomer based restoration system: a retrospective cohort Oct;27(10):1031-7. Mater. 2011
• ) Wang XY, Yap AU, Ngo HC. Effect of early water exposure on the strength of glass ionomer restoratives. Oper Dent 2006; 31: 584-9.
• ) Şener Y, Koyutürk AE. Üç farklı cam iyonomer simanın yüzey sertliklerinin karşılaş- tırılması. Cumhuriyet Üniversitesi Diş Hek Fak Derg 2006; 9: 91-4.
• ) Earl MS, Mount GJ, Hume WR. The effect of varnishes and other surface treatments on water movement across the glass ionomer cement surface. Aust Dent J 1989; 34: 326-9.1.
• ) Mitropoulos P, Rahiotis C, Stamatakis H, Kakaboura A. Diagnostic performance of the visual caries classification system ICDASII versus tomography for proximal caries detection: an in vitro study. J Dent. 2010; 38(11):859-67.
• ) Palaniappan S, Elsen L, Lijnen I, Peumans M, Van Meerbeek B, Lambrechts P. Three-year randomised clinical trial to evaluate the clinical performance, quantitative and qualitative wear patterns of hybrid composite restorations. 2010;14(4):441-58. Oral Investig.
• ) Lohbauer U. Dental glass ionomer cements as permanent fillig materials? – Properties, limitations and future trends. Materials. 2010: 3:76-96.
• ) Burke FJ, Lucarotti PS, Holder R. Outcome of direct restorations placed within the general dental services in England and Wales (Part 4): influence of time and place. J Dent. 2005;33(10):837-47.
• ) R. Hickel, J.-F. Roulet, S. Bayne, S. D. Heintze, I. A. Mjör, M. Peters, V. Rousson, R. Randall, G. Schmalz, M. Tyas, G. Vanherle. Recommendations for conducting controlled clinical studies of dental restorative materials. Clin Oral Invest. 2007;9(6):546.
• ) Bellinger DC, Trachtenberg F, Daniel D,Zhang A, Tavares MA, McKinlay S. A dose-effect analysis of children’s exposure to dental function: The new England children’s amal- gam trial. J Am Dent Assoc. 2007; 138(9):1210-6. neuropsychological
• ) Quist V, Laurberg L, Poulsen A, Teglers PT. Eight-year study on conventional glass ionomer and amalgam restorations in primary teeeth. Acta Odontol Scand. 2004; 62(1):37-45.
• ) Lo EC, Luo Y, Fan MW, Wei SHY. Clinical investigation of two glass- ionomer restoratives restorative treatment approach in China: two- years results. Caries Res. 2001; 35:458-463.
• ) Smales RJ, Yip HK. The atraumatic restorative treatment (ART) approach for the magement of dental caries. Quintessence Int. 2002; 33:427-432.
• ) Taifour D, Frencken JE, Beiruti N, Van't Hof MA, Truin GJ. Effectiveness of glass-ionomer restorations in the deciduous dentition: results after 3 years. Caries Res. 2002; 36:437-444.
• ) Yip HK, Smales RJ, Gao W, Peng D. The effects of two cavity preparation methods on the longevity of glass ionomer cement restorations. J Am Dent Assoc. 2002; 133:744- 750.
• ) Scholtanus JD, Huysmans MCDNJM. Clinical failure of Class-II restorations of a highly viscous glass-ionomer material over a 6-year period: A retrospective study. J Dent. 2007;35:156-162.
• ) Yılmaz Y, Eyuboğlu Ö, Kocaoğulları ME, Belduz M. A one-year clinical evalution of a high-viscosity glass ionomer cement in primary molars. J Contemp Dent Prac. 2006; 7(1):071-078.
• ) Turkun L.S., and Kanik O. Clinical evaluation of new glass ionomer-coating combinated systems for 18-months. J Dent Res. 2010; 89: Spec Issue: B.