Banu Onal1, Tijen Pamir. 1. Ege University, School of Dentistry, Department of Restorative Dentistry and Endodontics, Bornova-Izmir, Turkey.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Materials used in restoration of cervical lesions include resin-modified glass ionomer cements, polyacid-modified resin-based composites and resin-based composites. In this study, the authors evaluated the clinical performance of these materials over a two-year period. METHODS:Thirty patients were enrolled in this study. The authors placed in these patients 130 restorations, 24 of which were Vitremer (3M Dental Products, St. Paul, Minn.), 38 were F2000 Compomer (3M Dental Products), 46 were Dyract AP (Dentsply DeTrey, Konstanz, Germany) and 22 were Valux Plus (3M Dental Products). Enamel margins were not beveled, and no mechanical retention was placed. Two independent, calibrated examiners evaluated the restorations baseline and at one and two years after placement using modified U.S. Public Health Service criteria. RESULTS:Retention rates at the end of two years were 100 percent for Vitremer, 67 percent for F2000 Compomer, 68 percent for Dyract AP and 70 percent for Valux Plus. The retention rate of Vitremer was significantly higher than that of the others (P < .05). In other categories, however, Valux Plus had the most favorable performance (P < .05). No secondary caries was detected around any restoration. CONCLUSION: Vitremer, with its high retention rate, seems to be the most appropriate material for restoration of noncarious cervical lesions, though it does not have the esthetic properties of resin-based composites. All materials used in this study were in need of improvements. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: Resin-modified glass ionomer cement, polyacid-modified resin-based composite and resin-based composite behaved differently in the restoration of noncarious cervical lesions. Therefore, clinicians should take factors such as esthetic needs and localization into account in selecting materials for such restorations.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Materials used in restoration of cervical lesions include resin-modified glass ionomer cements, polyacid-modified resin-based composites and resin-based composites. In this study, the authors evaluated the clinical performance of these materials over a two-year period. METHODS: Thirty patients were enrolled in this study. The authors placed in these patients 130 restorations, 24 of which were Vitremer (3M Dental Products, St. Paul, Minn.), 38 were F2000 Compomer (3M Dental Products), 46 were Dyract AP (Dentsply DeTrey, Konstanz, Germany) and 22 were Valux Plus (3M Dental Products). Enamel margins were not beveled, and no mechanical retention was placed. Two independent, calibrated examiners evaluated the restorations baseline and at one and two years after placement using modified U.S. Public Health Service criteria. RESULTS: Retention rates at the end of two years were 100 percent for Vitremer, 67 percent for F2000 Compomer, 68 percent for Dyract AP and 70 percent for Valux Plus. The retention rate of Vitremer was significantly higher than that of the others (P < .05). In other categories, however, Valux Plus had the most favorable performance (P < .05). No secondary caries was detected around any restoration. CONCLUSION: Vitremer, with its high retention rate, seems to be the most appropriate material for restoration of noncarious cervical lesions, though it does not have the esthetic properties of resin-based composites. All materials used in this study were in need of improvements. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: Resin-modified glass ionomer cement, polyacid-modified resin-based composite and resin-based composite behaved differently in the restoration of noncarious cervical lesions. Therefore, clinicians should take factors such as esthetic needs and localization into account in selecting materials for such restorations.