Conventional versus resin-modified glass-ionomer cement for Class II restorations in primary molars. A 3-year clinical study.

BDJ ◽  
2003 ◽  
Vol 194 (8) ◽  
pp. 439-439
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Study ◽  
Glass Ionomer Cement ◽  
Class Ii ◽  
Primary Molars ◽  
Glass Ionomer ◽  
Resin Modified Glass Ionomer ◽  
Ionomer Cement

A Retrospective Study of the 3-Year Survival Rate of Resin-Modified Glass-Ionomer Cement Class II Restorations in Primary Molars

2016 ◽  
Vol 40 (1) ◽  
pp. 8-13 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mark Webman ◽  
Ezat Mulki ◽  
Rosie Roldan ◽  
Oscar Arevalo ◽  
John F Roberts ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Survival Rate ◽  
Glass Ionomer Cement ◽  
Class Ii ◽  
Radiographic Evaluation ◽  
Primary Molars ◽  
Glass Ionomer ◽  
Design Data ◽  
Resin Modified Glass Ionomer ◽  
Restorative Materials ◽  
Ionomer Cement

Objective: To determine the three-year survival rate of Class II resin-modified glass-ionomer cement (RMGIC), Vitremer, restorations in primary molars and to compare these results with measurements of survival of Class II restorations of standard restorative materials. Study Design: Data on Class II restorations placed in primary molars during a six-year period were collected through a chart review and radiographic evaluation in the office of a board-certified pediatric dentist. A radiograph showing that the restoration was intact was required at least 3 years after placement to qualify as successful. If no radiograph existed, the restoration was excluded. If the restoration was not found to be intact radiographically or was charted as having been replaced before three years it was recorded as a failure. The results of this study were then compared to other standard restorative materials using normalized annual failure rates. Results: Of the 1,231 Class II resinmodified glass-ionomer cement restorations placed over six years 427 met the inclusion criteria. There was a 97.42% survival rate for a 3-year period equivalent to an annual failure rate of 0.86%. Conclusions: A novel approach comparing materials showed that in this study Vitremer compared very favorably to previously published success rates of other standard restorative materials (amalgam, composite, stainless steel crown, compomer) and other RMGIC studies.

Microleakage of class II restoration with zirconia inlay: An in vitro study

2019 ◽  
pp. 61-67
Author(s):  
Xuan Anh Ngoc Ho ◽  
Anh Chi Phan ◽  
Toai Nguyen
Keyword(s):  
Glass Ionomer Cement ◽  
Class Ii ◽  
Resin Cement ◽  
Glass Ionomer ◽  
Resin Modified Glass Ionomer ◽  
Group 2 ◽  
Self Etch ◽  
Ionomer Cement ◽  
Group 1 ◽  
Composite Restoration

Background: Class II restoration with zirconia inlay is concerned by numerous studies about the luting coupling between zirconia inlay and teeth. The present study was performed to evaluate the microleakage of Class II zirconia inlayusing two different luting agents and compare to direct restoration using bulk fill composite. Aims: To evaluate the microleakage of Class II restorations using three different techniques. Materials and methods: The study was performed in laboratory with three groups. Each of thirty extracted human teeth was prepared a class II cavity with the same dimensions, then these teeth were randomly divided into 3 groups restored by 3 different approaches. Group 1: zirconia inlay cemented with self-etch resin cement (Multilink N); Group 2: zirconia inlay cemented with resin-modified glass ionomer cement (Fuji Plus); Group 3: direct composite restoration using bulk fill composite(Tetric N-Ceram Bulk Fill). All restorations were subjected to thermal cycling (100 cycles 50C – 55 0C), then immersed to 2% methylene blue solution for 24 hours. The microleakage determined by the extent of dye penetration along the gingival wall was assessed using two methods: quantitative and semi-quantitative method. Results: Among three types of restorations, group 1 demonstrated the significantly lower rate of leakage compared to the others, while group 2 and 3 showed no significant difference. Conclusion: Zirconia inlay restoration cemented with self-etch resin cement has least microleakage degree when compare to class II zirconia inlay restoration cemented with resin-modified glass ionomer cement and direct composite restoration using bulk fill composite. Key words: inlay, zirconia ceramic, class II restoration, microleakage.

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 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.

A One-Year Clinical Evaluation of a High-Viscosity Glass Ionomer Cement in Primary Molars

2006 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
pp. 71-78 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yucel Yilmaz ◽  
Özge Eyuboglu ◽  
Mutlu Elcin Kocogullari ◽  
Nihal Belduz
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Evaluation ◽  
Glass Ionomer Cement ◽  
Class Ii ◽  
High Viscosity ◽  
Class I ◽  
Primary Molars ◽  
Glass Ionomer ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
One Year ◽  
Ionomer Cement

Abstract In this study one-year clinical results of high-viscosity glass ionomer cement (GIC) (Fuji IX, A3, GC, Japan) were determined in class I and class II restorations in 68 primary molars with occlusal or approximal caries. Following caries removal and cavity preparation, the teeth were restored with Fuji IX. The restorations were evaluated according to the U.S. Public Health Service's (USPHS) criteria at the end of one year. Statistical analyses of the data obtained were analyzed using the X2 test. The evaluations showed no statistically significant difference between class I and class II restorations in terms of the color mismatch, anatomic form, marginal adaptation, and secondary caries (P>0.05), but they were statistically significant with regard to cavosurface marginal discoloration (P<0.05). At the end of one year, the success rate of the class I and class II restorations of the primary molars restored with Fuji IX was 94%. Citation Yilmaz Y, Eyuboglu Ö, Kocogullari ME, Belduz M. A One-Year Clinical Evaluation of a High-Viscosity Glass Ionomer Cement in Primary Molars. J Contemp Dent Pract 2006 February;(7)1:071-078.

Two-Year Clinical Evaluation of Three Restorative Materials in Primary Molars

2009 ◽  
Vol 34 (1) ◽  
pp. 53-58 ◽  
Author(s):  
Maha Daou ◽  
Bruno Tavernier ◽  
Jean-Marc Meyer
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Performance ◽  
Glass Ionomer Cement ◽  
Class Ii ◽  
Class I ◽  
Glass Ionomer Cements ◽  
Glass Ionomer ◽  
High Caries Risk ◽  
Resin Modified Glass Ionomer ◽  
Amalgam Restorations ◽  
Ionomer Cement

A variety of alternatives to amalgam are now available for use in Class I and Class II restorations in primary teeth, including glass ionomer cements, compomers and resin modified glass ionomer cements(RMGIC). Objectives: This study evaluated the two-year clinical performance of three restorative dental materials: A resin modified glass ionomer cement (Fuji IILC), a compomer (Dyract AP) and a high viscosity glass ionomer cement (Fuji IX), in primary molars of pediatric patients with high caries risk activity and compared these results to those reported for amalgam restorations. Study design: One hundred and forty nine Class I and Class II cavities in 45 patients aged 6 to 8 years were restored with compomer, glass ionomer cements and amalgam. Restorations were evaluated according to modified Ryge criteria by two examiners at baseline, and after 6, 12, 18 and 24 months of oral function. The data was submitted to statistical analysis (binomial and hyper geometric tests, p&lt;0.05). Results: Two-year recall rate was 62.42%. Class I performed better than class II restorations. The difference in marginal discoloration between compomer and amalgam restorations was statistically significant (p=0.014). No other significant differences were found between GIC, compomer and amalgam restorations. The clinical performance of the three restorative materials compared to amalgam in Class I and Class II cavities at two-year recall was acceptable.Conclusions: The results, even in a population with high caries risk activity, suggest that these materials are suitable alternatives to amalgam in Class I and Class II restorations in primary teeth.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document