BACKGROUND: A new restorative called a "giomer composite" has been introduced. The authors conducted a study to determine retention, anatomical form, caries, staining, marginal discoloration, marginal adaptation, surface roughness and sensitivity of giomer compared with those of a microfilled composite. METHODS: The authors placed 40 sets of restorations randomly in canines and premolars in vivo. They used a giomer composite and a microfilled composite in erosion/abrasion/abfraction Class V lesions that were not altered with rotary instruments. They placed the restorations according to manufacturer's recommendations, and two calibrated examiners evaluated the restorations independently using modified U.S. Public Health Service criteria at baseline and at six, 18 and 36 months. The lesions receiving the restorations did not differ from each other in the amount of circumferential enamel present, the percentage of the surface area of dentin or lesion type. RESULTS: There were no differences in the restorations at baseline, an evaluation made two weeks after placement. At 36 months, the giomer and microfilled composite restorations were not significantly different from one another in any of the eight criteria evaluated. The percentage agreement between examiners was at least 83 percent for each criterion in each evaluation period. CONCLUSIONS: Both the giomer and the microfilled composite used in this study meet the clinical portion of the Acceptance Program Guidelines for Dentin and Enamel Adhesives Materials established by the American Dental Association. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: Both the giomer and the microfilled composite used in this study can be used with confidence in Class V lesions.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: A new restorative called a "giomer composite" has been introduced. The authors conducted a study to determine retention, anatomical form, caries, staining, marginal discoloration, marginal adaptation, surface roughness and sensitivity of giomer compared with those of a microfilled composite. METHODS: The authors placed 40 sets of restorations randomly in canines and premolars in vivo. They used a giomer composite and a microfilled composite in erosion/abrasion/abfraction Class V lesions that were not altered with rotary instruments. They placed the restorations according to manufacturer's recommendations, and two calibrated examiners evaluated the restorations independently using modified U.S. Public Health Service criteria at baseline and at six, 18 and 36 months. The lesions receiving the restorations did not differ from each other in the amount of circumferential enamel present, the percentage of the surface area of dentin or lesion type. RESULTS: There were no differences in the restorations at baseline, an evaluation made two weeks after placement. At 36 months, the giomer and microfilled composite restorations were not significantly different from one another in any of the eight criteria evaluated. The percentage agreement between examiners was at least 83 percent for each criterion in each evaluation period. CONCLUSIONS: Both the giomer and the microfilled composite used in this study meet the clinical portion of the Acceptance Program Guidelines for Dentin and Enamel Adhesives Materials established by the American Dental Association. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: Both the giomer and the microfilled composite used in this study can be used with confidence in Class V lesions.
Authors: R Condò; L Cerroni; G Pasquantonio; M Mancini; A Pecora; A Convertino; V Mussi; A Rinaldi; L Maiolo Journal: Biomed Res Int Date: 2017-06-29 Impact factor: 3.411