scholarly journals Clinical and Radiographic Evaluation of Compomer and Composite used for Restoring Primary Teeth

2019 ◽  
Vol 26 (1) ◽  
pp. 37-49
Author(s):  
Omar A. El Meligy ◽  
Amani A. Al Tuwirqi
Keyword(s):  
Primary Teeth ◽  
Resin Composite ◽  
Class Ii ◽  
Class I ◽  
Radiographic Evaluation ◽  
Primary Molars ◽  
Tooth Structure ◽  
Patients Âgés ◽  
Group I ◽  
One Year

This study assessed different restorative materials in primary teeth over a one-year period. Sixty carious primary molars were selected from 30 patients; ages 5-10 years. Class I and II cavities were divided into four groups: Group I: 15 Class I cavities were restored with a compomer, Group II: 15 Class I cavities were restored with a resin composite, Group III: 15 Class II cavities were restored with a compomer and Group IV: 15 Class II cavities were restored with a resin composite. Each child had two teeth restored, one with compomer and the other with composite resin as control. Direct clinical and radiographic evaluations were performed by one examiner after 24 hours, 6- and 12-months. Indirect clinical evaluations were performed using a Scanning Electron Microscope after 24 hours and 12-months periodically. Clinical and radiographic evaluations revealed no significant differences between the compomer and resin composite at 6- and 12-months. Indirect clinical evaluation showed good marginal interfaces between the restorations and the tooth structure throughout the evaluation periods. Both materials presented significant clinical and radiographic performances in Class I and II restorations of primary molars after one year.

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.

scholarly journals One-Year Clinical Aging of Low Stress Bulk-Fill Flowable Composite in Class II Restorations: A Case Report and Literature Review

Coatings ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (5) ◽  
pp. 504
Author(s):  
Louis Hardan ◽  
Monika Lukomska-Szymanska ◽  
Maciej Zarow ◽  
Carlos Enrique Cuevas-Suárez ◽  
Rim Bourgi ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Resin Composite ◽  
Morphological Characteristics ◽  
Class Ii ◽  
Gap Formation ◽  
Tooth Structure ◽  
Flowable Composite ◽  
Adhesive Interface ◽  
Composite Interface ◽  
Oral Environment ◽  
One Year

Bulk-fill flowable composites provide functional and aesthetic restorations while eliminating incremental composite layering and saving time. The degradation of the adhesive interface with subsequent gap formation is a concern when adhesively luted restorations are placed. Moreover, the number of adhesive interface failures increases when they are exposed to long-term water storage. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the morphological characteristics of the tooth-composite interface in class II cavities restored with a low stress bulk-fill flowable composite after aging in an oral environment. We describe a case of a patient with class II cavities in four premolars restored with a low stress bulk-fill flowable composite Surefil SDR (Dentsply DeTrey GmbH, Konstanz, Germany). The occlusal part was restored with nano-hybrid resin composite Ceram X Mono (Dentsply DeTrey GmbH). After one year of clinical function, the teeth were extracted and examined in a scanning electron microscope (SEM). It can be concluded that the application of bulk-fill covered with conventional composite seems to provide the homogeneous and stable bond to tooth structure after one year of aging in an oral environment. However, some defects within the dentin-resin composite interface were observed.

A randomized trial of resin-based restorations in class I and class II beveled preparations in primary molars

2009 ◽  
Vol 140 (2) ◽  
pp. 156-166 ◽  
Author(s):  
Márcia Pereira Alves dos Santos ◽  
Mariana Passos ◽  
Ronir Raggio Luiz ◽  
Lucianne Cople Maia
Keyword(s):  
Randomized Trial ◽  
Class Ii ◽  
Class I ◽  
Primary Molars

scholarly journals Influence of Fiber Inserts, Type of Composite, and Gingival Margin Location on the Microleakage in Class II Resin Composite Restorations

2014 ◽  
Vol 39 (1) ◽  
pp. E9-E15 ◽  
Author(s):  
V Dhingra ◽  
S Taneja ◽  
M Kumar ◽  
M Kumari
Keyword(s):  
Resin Composite ◽  
Class Ii ◽  
Blue Dye ◽  
Group Vi ◽  
Group V ◽  
Gingival Margin ◽  
Composite Restorations ◽  
Group I ◽  
Distal Side ◽  
Fiber Inserts

SUMMARY This study evaluated the influence of fiber inserts, type of composites, and location of the gingival seat on microleakage in Class II resin composite restorations. Fifty noncarious human third molars were selected for the study. Standardized Class II box type cavities were prepared on the mesial and distal side of 45 teeth. The gingival margin was placed above the cementoenamel junction (CEJ) on the mesial side and below the CEJ on the distal side. The remaining five teeth received no cavity preparations. The prepared samples were divided randomly on the basis of type of composite and presence or absence of fiber inserts, into four experimental groups of 10 teeth each and two control groups of five teeth each. The groups were defined as follows: group I (n=10) – Z350 XT; group II (n=10) – Z350 XT with fibers; group III (n=10) – P90; group IV (n=10) – P90 with fibers; and group V (n=5) – positive controls, cavities were not restored; group VI (n=5) – negative controls, no cavities were prepared. The samples were stored in distilled water in incubator at 37°C for 24 hours and then subjected to 500 cycles of thermocycling (5°C and 55°C) with a dwell time of 15 seconds. They were then placed in a 2% methylene blue dye solution for 24 hours at 37°C. Samples were sectioned longitudinally and evaluated for microleakage at the occlusal and gingival margin under a stereomicroscope at 20× magnification. Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney U-tests were used to compare the mean leakage scores. Restorations with gingival margins in enamel showed significantly less microleakage. Significant reduction in microleakage was observed in groups restored with P90 composite than those restored with Z350 XT. No improvement in microleakage was observed with the use of fiber inserts (p&gt;0.05).

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.

In Vivo Chlorhexidine Stabilization of Hybrid Layers of an Acetone-based Dentin Adhesive

2009 ◽  
Vol 34 (4) ◽  
pp. 379-383 ◽  
Author(s):  
M. G. Brackett ◽  
F. R. Tay ◽  
W. W. Brackett ◽  
A. Dib ◽  
F. A. Dipp ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Relevance ◽  
Resin Composite ◽  
Class I ◽  
Chlorhexidine Digluconate ◽  
Composite Restorations ◽  
Extensive Degradation ◽  
One Year ◽  
Hybrid Layers ◽  
Dentin Adhesive

Clinical Relevance Extensive degradation of dentin hybrid layers formed with an acetone-based dentin adhesive beneath Class I resin composite restorations was evident after one year unless the teeth received an application of 2% chlorhexidine digluconate after etching.

Randomised trial of resin-based restorations in Class I and Class II beveled preparations in primary molars: 48-Month results

2010 ◽  
Vol 38 (6) ◽  
pp. 451-459 ◽  
Author(s):  
Márcia Pereira Alves dos Santos ◽  
Ronir Raggio Luiz ◽  
Lucianne Cople Maia
Keyword(s):  
Randomised Trial ◽  
Class Ii ◽  
Class I ◽  
Primary Molars

scholarly journals Survival Rates of Class II Restoration in Primary Molar with Flowable Resin Composite

2021 ◽  
Vol 48 (1) ◽  
pp. 12-20
Author(s):  
Hyejun Seo ◽  
Soyoung Park ◽  
Eungyung Lee ◽  
Taesung Jeong ◽  
Jonghyun Shin
Keyword(s):  
Stainless Steel ◽  
Survival Rate ◽  
Resin Composite ◽  
Survival Rates ◽  
Class Ii ◽  
Primary Molars ◽  
Primary Molar ◽  
Proximal Caries ◽  
Kaplan Meier ◽  
Significant Difference

The purpose of this retrospective study was to evaluate the survival rate by comparing Class II restoration using flowable resin composite with stainless steel crown in primary molars.Electronic medical records and radiographs of 1,504 primary molars with proximal caries of 590 patients from June 2015 to August 2019 were analyzed. With the collected data, survival analysis was performed using the Kaplan-Meier method.The 1-year survival rate of flowable resin composite in the primary molar was 98.5%, 3-year survival rate was 87.7%, and mean survival time was 39 months. There was no statistically significant difference between flowable resin composite and stainless steel crown (<i>p</i> = 0.896).Within the limits of this study, Class II restoration using flowable resin composite can be considered a promising option for the treatment of proximal caries in primary molars.

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 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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document