R Banu Ermiş1. 1. Department of Restorative Dentistry and Endodontics, Suleyman Demirel University, School of Dentistry, Dişhekimliği Fakültesi, Eski Sümerbank Cad, 32040 Isparta, Türkiye. banu_ermis@yahoo.com
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to compare the clinical performances of four polyacid-modified resin composites (F2000, Dyract AP, Compoglass F, and Elan) and one resin-modified glass-ionomer cement (Vitremer) in Class V abrasion/erosion lesions. METHOD AND MATERIALS: Twenty restorations of each of the five restorative materials were placed in noncarious cervical abrasion/erosion lesions by one dentist. No cavity preparation was attempted. All teeth were isolated with cotton rolls and gingival retraction cord. The materials were manipulated according to the manufacturer's instructions and placed with the help of cervical matrixes. Restorations were finished and polished immediately after the placement. Evaluations were performed at baseline and 6 months, 1 year, and 2 years after placement for retention, color match, cavo-surface marginal discoloration, anatomic form, marginal adaptation, secondary caries, and postoperative sensitivity. RESULTS:Retention levels at 2 years were 90% for F2000, 90% for Dyract AP, 89% for Compoglass F, 84% for Elan, and 95% for the Vitremer restorations. No statistically significant differences were found among the materials after 2 years for any evaluation category. CONCLUSION:Polyacid-modified resin composite and resin-modified glass-ionomer cement restorations showed acceptable clinical performance after 2 years.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to compare the clinical performances of four polyacid-modified resin composites (F2000, Dyract AP, Compoglass F, and Elan) and one resin-modified glass-ionomer cement (Vitremer) in Class V abrasion/erosion lesions. METHOD AND MATERIALS: Twenty restorations of each of the five restorative materials were placed in noncarious cervical abrasion/erosion lesions by one dentist. No cavity preparation was attempted. All teeth were isolated with cotton rolls and gingival retraction cord. The materials were manipulated according to the manufacturer's instructions and placed with the help of cervical matrixes. Restorations were finished and polished immediately after the placement. Evaluations were performed at baseline and 6 months, 1 year, and 2 years after placement for retention, color match, cavo-surface marginal discoloration, anatomic form, marginal adaptation, secondary caries, and postoperative sensitivity. RESULTS: Retention levels at 2 years were 90% for F2000, 90% for Dyract AP, 89% for Compoglass F, 84% for Elan, and 95% for the Vitremer restorations. No statistically significant differences were found among the materials after 2 years for any evaluation category. CONCLUSION:Polyacid-modified resin composite and resin-modified glass-ionomer cement restorations showed acceptable clinical performance after 2 years.