OBJECTIVE: To assess the suitability of more-viscous conventional restorative glass ionomer cements (GICs) in a high-caries risk group of patients. METHODS: Fifteen adult patients with radiation-induced caries were treated at a dental hospital by one dentist. Two encapsulated aesthetic GICs were used in each patient to restore 146 carious lesions in the exposed dentine and cementum of 93 teeth. The restorations were assessed directly over two years for their retention, secondary caries, anatomic form, marginal integrity, marginal discolouration, and surface texture. RESULTS: Both GICs were placed in similar sized cavities (P = 0.63). After two years, although 30.0% of Ketac-Molar Aplicap and 12.5% of Fuji IX GP restorations had been lost (P = 0.01), there were no instances of secondary caries. The remaining GICs showed ongoing marginal deterioration, but there were very few instances where this required the repair or replacement of the restorations. No restorations failed from surface erosion. CONCLUSIONS: In these high-caries risk patients the placement of more-viscous GICs appeared to prevent secondary caries, even when the restorations were subsequently lost.
OBJECTIVE: To assess the suitability of more-viscous conventional restorative glass ionomer cements (GICs) in a high-caries risk group of patients. METHODS: Fifteen adult patients with radiation-induced caries were treated at a dental hospital by one dentist. Two encapsulated aesthetic GICs were used in each patient to restore 146 carious lesions in the exposed dentine and cementum of 93 teeth. The restorations were assessed directly over two years for their retention, secondary caries, anatomic form, marginal integrity, marginal discolouration, and surface texture. RESULTS: Both GICs were placed in similar sized cavities (P = 0.63). After two years, although 30.0% of Ketac-Molar Aplicap and 12.5% of Fuji IX GP restorations had been lost (P = 0.01), there were no instances of secondary caries. The remaining GICs showed ongoing marginal deterioration, but there were very few instances where this required the repair or replacement of the restorations. No restorations failed from surface erosion. CONCLUSIONS: In these high-caries risk patients the placement of more-viscous GICs appeared to prevent secondary caries, even when the restorations were subsequently lost.
Authors: Roeland J G De Moor; Inge G Stassen; Yoke van 't Veldt; Dries Torbeyns; Geert M G Hommez Journal: Clin Oral Investig Date: 2009-12-08 Impact factor: 3.573
Authors: Catherine H L Hong; Joel J Napeñas; Brian D Hodgson; Monique A Stokman; Vickie Mathers-Stauffer; Linda S Elting; Fred K L Spijkervet; Michael T Brennan Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2010-05-07 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Alan Roger S Silva; Fabio A Alves; Sandrine B Berger; Marcelo Giannini; Mario F Goes; Marcio A Lopes Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2009-04-17 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Roberta Galetti; Alan Roger Santos-Silva; Alberto Nogueira da Gama Antunes; Fabio de Abreu Alves; Marcio Ajudarte Lopes; Mario Fernando de Goes Journal: Clin Oral Investig Date: 2013-12-06 Impact factor: 3.573
Authors: Juliana Arid; Regina Guenka Palma-Dibb; Harley Francisco de Oliveira; Paulo Nelson-Filho; Fabricio Kitazono de Carvalho; Lea Assed Bezerra da Silva; Talitha de Siqueira Mellara; Raquel Assed Bezerra da Silva; Juliana Jendiroba Faraoni; Alexandra Mussolino de Queiroz Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2019-04-24 Impact factor: 3.603