Literature DB >> 12085859

The effects of two cavity preparation methods on the longevity of glass ionomer cement restorations: an evaluation after 12 months.

Kevin H K Yip1, Roger J Smales, Wei Gao, Dong Peng.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The authors undertook a study to evaluate the effect of two cavity preparation methods on the initial survival of two more-viscous glass ionomer cements, or GICs, placed in the occlusal surfaces of permanent molar teeth.
METHODS: Three dentists placed 149 restorations in 68 adult patients in a hospital clinic. They used either atraumatic restorative treatment, or ART, or conventional cavity preparation methods to place two encapsulated esthetic conventional GICs: Fuji IX GP (GC International Corp., Tokyo) and Ketac-Molar Aplicap (3M ESPE, Seefeld, Germany). For comparison, they used high-copper-content GK Amalgam Alloy (Advanced Technology & Materials Co. Ltd., Beijing) in conventional preparations. They evaluated the restorations using both direct and indirect observation methods.
RESULTS: Cavity preparations for which the authors used ART hand instruments took approximately twice as long to complete as did those for which they used conventional rotary instruments. After 12 months, no restorations had failed, but restorations comprising both GICs showed early losses of adjacent sealant material. Both GICs also showed relatively high restoration wear. At 12 months, the mean cumulative net occlusal wear for Fuji IX GP was 77 +/- 47 micrometers, and for Ketac-Molar 83 +/- 51 microm, without statistical significance (P > .05). Color matching improved significantly with time (P < .001), without significant differences in color between the two GICs by 12 months (P = .09). The amalgam alloy had minor surface tarnishing and marginal discrepancies increased with time (P < .00 1).
CONCLUSIONS: All of the occlusal restorations were rated as satisfactory after 12 months. The method of cavity preparation did not affect the restoration performance of the GICs. However, their deterioration requires long-term monitoring. Clinical Implications. The more viscous GICs appear initially suitable for restricted use in clinical practice when placed using either of two cavity preparation methods in the occlusal surfaces of permanent molar teeth in adults.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2002        PMID: 12085859     DOI: 10.14219/jada.archive.2002.0272

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Am Dent Assoc        ISSN: 0002-8177            Impact factor:   3.634


  10 in total

Review 1.  Survival of atraumatic restorative treatment (ART) sealants and restorations: a meta-analysis.

Authors:  Rodrigo G de Amorim; Soraya C Leal; Jo E Frencken
Journal:  Clin Oral Investig       Date:  2011-01-28       Impact factor: 3.573

Review 2.  Atraumatic restorative treatment versus amalgam restoration longevity: a systematic review.

Authors:  Steffen Mickenautsch; Veerasamy Yengopal; Avijit Banerjee
Journal:  Clin Oral Investig       Date:  2009-08-18       Impact factor: 3.573

3.  Survival percentages of atraumatic restorative treatment (ART) restorations and sealants in posterior teeth: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  R G de Amorim; J E Frencken; D P Raggio; X Chen; X Hu; S C Leal
Journal:  Clin Oral Investig       Date:  2018-09-19       Impact factor: 3.573

Review 4.  Expert consensus on early childhood caries management.

Authors:  Jing Zou; Qin Du; Lihong Ge; Jun Wang; Xiaojing Wang; Yuqing Li; Guangtai Song; Wei Zhao; Xu Chen; Beizhan Jiang; Yufeng Mei; Yang Huang; Shuli Deng; Hongmei Zhang; Yanhong Li; Xuedong Zhou
Journal:  Int J Oral Sci       Date:  2022-07-14       Impact factor: 24.897

5.  Comparison of two minimally invasive methods on the longevity of glass ionomer cement restorations: short-term results of a pilot study.

Authors:  Terezinha Jesus Esteves Barata; Eduardo Bresciani; Maria Cecília Ribeiro Mattos; José Roberto Pereira Lauris; Dan Ericson; Maria Fidela de Lima Navarro
Journal:  J Appl Oral Sci       Date:  2008 Mar-Apr       Impact factor: 2.698

Review 6.  Atraumatic restorative treatment versus conventional restorative treatment for managing dental caries.

Authors:  Mojtaba Dorri; Maria José Martinez-Zapata; Tanya Walsh; Valeria Cc Marinho; Aubrey Sheiham Deceased; Carlos Zaror
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2017-12-28

7.  Do Laboratory Results Concerning High-Viscosity Glass-Ionomers versus Amalgam for Tooth Restorations Indicate Similar Effect Direction and Magnitude than that of Controlled Clinical Trials? - A Meta-Epidemiological Study.

Authors:  Steffen Mickenautsch; Veerasamy Yengopal
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2015-07-13       Impact factor: 3.240

8.  Direct contra naïve-indirect comparison of clinical failure rates between high-viscosity GIC and conventional amalgam restorations: an empirical study.

Authors:  Steffen Mickenautsch; Veerasamy Yengopal
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2013-10-28       Impact factor: 3.240

9.  Evaluation and Comparison of Stress Distribution in Restored Cervical Lesions of Mandibular Premolars: Three-dimensional Finite Element Analysis.

Authors:  Swathi Pai; Nithesh Naik; Vathsala Patil; Jaskirat Kaur; Swetank Awasti; Nithin Nayak
Journal:  J Int Soc Prev Community Dent       Date:  2019-11-04

10.  A comparative survival analysis of high viscosity glass ionomer restorations using conventional cavity preparation and atraumatic restorative treatment technique in primary molars: A randomized clinical trial.

Authors:  G Y Yunus; Hunny Sharma; Afreen Begum H Itagi; Himanshu Srivastava
Journal:  Dent Res J (Isfahan)       Date:  2021-11-22
  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.