scholarly journals Clinical performance of resin-modified glass ionomer cement, flowable composite, and polyacid-modified resin composite in noncarious cervical lesions: One-year follow-up

2018 ◽  
Vol 21 (5) ◽  
pp. 510 ◽  
Author(s):  
Iffat Nasim ◽  
SyedNazia Hussainy ◽  
Toby Thomas ◽  
Manish Ranjan
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Performance ◽  
Resin Composite ◽  
Glass Ionomer Cement ◽  
Glass Ionomer ◽  
Cervical Lesions ◽  
Flowable Composite ◽  
Resin Modified Glass Ionomer ◽  
One Year ◽  
Ionomer Cement

scholarly journals Effect of incorporation of nano-hydroxyapatite particles on the clinical performance of conventional and resin-modified glass ionomer cement in class V cavities: split-mouth, randomized controlled trial

2021 ◽  
Vol 45 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Zeinab M. Zaki ◽  
Maha A. Niazy ◽  
Mohamed H. Zaazou ◽  
Shaymaa M. Nagi ◽  
Dina W. Elkassas
Keyword(s):  
Surface Texture ◽  
Clinical Performance ◽  
Glass Ionomer Cement ◽  
Glass Ionomer ◽  
Class V ◽  
Resin Modified Glass Ionomer ◽  
Restorative Materials ◽  
Significant Change ◽  
Ionomer Cement

Abstract Background The aim of this study was to compare the clinical performance of Nano-hydroxyapatite-modified conventional glass ionomer cement (NHA-GIC) and Nano-hydroxyapatite-modified resin-modified glass ionomer cement (NHA-RMGIC) with conventional glass ionomer (CGIC) and resin-modified glass ionomer (RMGIC) in the treatment of caries class V cavities. Sixty patients with at least two cervical caries lesions participated in this study. A total of 120 class V cavities were prepared and then restored using different restorative materials. Restorations were clinically evaluated according to modified United States Public Health Service criteria at baseline and after 3, 6 and 9 months. Results There was no statistically significant difference in the clinical performance of the different restorative materials at any of the follow-up periods. However, throughout the study period there was a statistically significant change in the color match, surface texture and marginal integrity in NHA-GIC. A statistically significant change in the surface texture and marginal integrity was found in GIC. On the other hand, there was only a statistically significant change in surface texture in NHA-RMGIC. Conclusions All tested restorative materials, control (CGIC and RMGIC) as well as experimental (NHA-GIC and NHA-RMGIC), exhibited comparable clinical performance after 9 months follow-up.

Randomized Clinical Trial of Adhesive Restorations in Non Carious Cervical Lesions

2016 ◽  
Vol 695 ◽  
pp. 3-11 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sanda Mihaela Popescu ◽  
Mihaela Jana Ţuculină ◽  
Horia Octavian Manolea ◽  
Veronica Mercuţ ◽  
Monica Scrieciu
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Randomized Clinical Trial ◽  
Clinical Performance ◽  
Resin Composite ◽  
Survival Rates ◽  
Glass Ionomer Cement ◽  
Glass Ionomer ◽  
Cervical Lesions ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Resin Modified Glass Ionomer

AIM: To evaluate the clinical performance of adhesive restorations of resin-modified glass-ionomer cements (RMGIC) compared with of resin composite (RC), and RMGIC liner base laminated with a resin composite in non carious cervical lesions (NCCL).METHODS: The randomized clinical trial included 45 patients (25-65 year-old), with at least two similar sized NCCL on premolars. After sample size calculation, 220 restorations were placed, according to one of the following groups: (G1) Resin-modified glass-ionomer cement (Vitremer); (G2) a resin composite and an adhesive layer (Versaflo); (G3) RMGIC liner base laminated with a resin composite (Vitremer and Versaflo). The restorations were clinically followed every 6 months for up to 24 months using the USPHS modified criteria for clinical evaluation. Survival estimates for restoration longevity were evaluated using the Kaplan-Meier method. Log-rank test (P< 0.05) was used to compare the differences in the success rate according to the type of the restorative material.RESULTS: At the end of 24 months, 172 restorations were evaluated in 37 patients, with a recall rate of 82.22%. The type of restorative material used did not influence the longevity of the restorations. The survival rates for the follow-up were similar regarding the number of restored surfaces and the tooth (upper or lower premolar). Estimated survival rates of the restorations were 100%, 100%, 98,25% and 90,69% at 6, 12, 18 and 24 months of clinical evaluations, respectively. A statistically significant difference was observed between RMGIC and RC or RMGIC laminated with RC for color match, but no other significant difference was observed among the three types of restorations.CONCLUSIONS: The survival rates were similar for the three types of restorations in NCCL. Different types of materials demonstrated acceptable clinical performance in non-carious cervical lesions.

scholarly journals To Evaluate Shear Bond Strength of Resin Composite to Theracal Lc, Biodentine, and Resin–Modified Glass Ionomer Cement and Mode of Fracture: An In Vitro Study

2020 ◽  
Vol 8 (02) ◽  
pp. 49-54
Author(s):  
Salil Mehra ◽  
Ashu K. Gupta ◽  
Bhanu Pratap Singh ◽  
Mandeep Kaur ◽  
Ashwath Kumar
Keyword(s):  
Statistical Analysis ◽  
Bond Strength ◽  
Shear Bond Strength ◽  
Resin Composite ◽  
Glass Ionomer Cement ◽  
Bonding Agent ◽  
Glass Ionomer ◽  
Universal Adhesive ◽  
Resin Modified Glass Ionomer ◽  
Ionomer Cement

Abstract Introduction The aim of the current study was to evaluate shear bond strength of resin composite bonded to Theracal LC, Biodentine, and resin-modified glass ionomer cement (RMGIC) using universal adhesive and mode of fracture. Materials and Methods A total of 50 caries-free maxillary and mandibular molars extracted were taken; occlusal cavities were prepared, mounted in acrylic blocks, and divided into five groups based on the liner used. Group 1: Biodentine liner placed into the cavity and bonding agent and resin composite applied after 12 minutes. Group 2: Biodentine liner placed into the cavity and bonding agent and resin composite applied after 14 days. Group 3: RMGIC liner placed into the cavity and bonding agent and resin composite applied immediately. Group 4: RMGIC liner placed into the cavity and bonding agent and resin composite applied after 7 days. Group 5: Theracal LC liner placed into the cavity and bonding agent and resin composite applied immediately. Each sample was bonded to resin composite using universal adhesive. Shear bond strength analysis was performed at a cross-head speed of 0.1 mm/min. Statistical Analysis  Statistical analysis was performed with one-way analysis of variance and posthoc Bonferroni test using SPSS version 22.0. Results and Conclusion Biodentine liner when bonded immediately to resin composite showed minimum shear bond strength. RMGIC when bonded to resin composite after 7 days showed maximum shear bond strength. Mode of fracture was predominantly cohesive in groups having Biodentine and Theracal LC as liner.

COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF RESTORATIVE TREATMENTS ON NON-CARIOUS CERVICAL LESIONS OF COMPOSITE AND GLASS IONOMER CEMENT

2020 ◽  
pp. 38-45
Author(s):  
Duong Nguyen Thi Thuy ◽  
Huong Nguyen Thi Kim
Keyword(s):  
Glass Ionomer Cement ◽  
Glass Ionomer ◽  
Cervical Lesions ◽  
Composite Restorations ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Composite Glass ◽  
Group 2 ◽  
Ionomer Cement ◽  
Group 1

Background: Composite and Glass ionomer cement (GIC) are common restorative materials of non carious cervical lesions (NCCLs), which effects are controverisial. The aim of the present study was to compare the result of restorations on NCCLs between Composite and GIC. Materials and Methods: follow-up clinical trial with split-mouth design. Thirty-six patients with 96 NCCLs were divided into 2 groups (n=48/group): Group 1 restored by Composite, Group 2 restored by GIC. The restorations were evaluated at baseline, 1 and 3 months for pulpal sensitivity, restoration morphology and overall success grade. Results: GIC restorations gained 100% Good results for all parameters at 3 time points. Composite showed 87.5%, 93.8% and 97.9% Good results at baseline, 1 and 3 months, sequentially. At 3 weeks recall, 1 Composite restorations (2.1%) showed Moderate results of Retention and 2 Composite restorations (4.2%) changed colour. Conclusions: There was no statistically significant difference seen among the three groups for 3 parameters. Key words: non-carious cervical lesion, Composite, Glass ionomer cement

scholarly journals Shear Bond Strength of Self-Adhesive Flowable Composite, Conventional Flowable Composite and Resin-Modified Glass Ionomer Cement to Primary Dentin

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kiana Poorzandpoush ◽  
Mehdi Shahrabi ◽  
Alireza Heidari ◽  
Zohre Sadat Hosseinipour
Keyword(s):  
Bond Strength ◽  
Shear Bond Strength ◽  
Glass Ionomer Cement ◽  
Glass Ionomer ◽  
Adhesive Failure ◽  
Flowable Composite ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Resin Modified Glass Ionomer ◽  
Group 3 ◽  
Ionomer Cement

Objectives: This study aimed to compare the shear bond strength (SBS) of self-adhesive and conventional flowable composites and resin-modified glass-ionomer cement (RMGIC) to primary dentin. Materials and Methods: In this in vitro, experimental study, the buccal surface of 48 primary canine and first molar teeth was longitudinally sectioned to expose dentin. The teeth were randomly divided into three groups (n=16) of 37.5% phosphoric acid+ OptiBond+ Premise Flow composite (group 1), Vertise Flow composite (group 2) and RMGIC (group 3). A plastic cylindrical mold was placed on the exposed dentin and filled with restorative materials. The samples were then immersed in distilled water at 37°C for 24 hours, subjected to 1000 thermal cycles between 5-55°C and underwent SBS test. The mode of failure was determined under a stereomicroscope. Data were analyzed using one-way ANOVA and Tukey’s test. Results: A significant difference was noted in SBS of the groups (P<0.05). The SBS of conventional flowable composite was significantly higher that of RMGIC and self-adhesive flowable composite (P<0.05). The difference in SBS of RMGIC and self-adhesive flowable composite was not significant (P>0.05). Failure at the dentin-restoration interface (adhesive failure) had the highest frequency in groups 1 and 2. The frequency of adhesive failure was 100% in group 3. Conclusions: Within the limitations of this study, the conventional flowable composite yielded the highest SBS to primary dentin. Self-adhesive flowable composite and RMGIC showed the lowest SBS with no significant difference with each other.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document