Literature DB >> 17473040

A clinical evaluation of a self-etching primer and a giomer restorative material: results at eight years.

Valeria V Gordan1, Eduardo Mondragon, Ronald E Watson, Cyndi Garvan, Ivar A Mjör.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The authors evaluated the performance of a giomer restorative material (Beautifil, Shofu, Kyoto, Japan) with a self-etching primer (FL-Bond, Shofu) for posterior restorations.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Two clinicians placed 26 Class I restorations and 35 Class II restorations in 31 patients ranging in age from 21 to 62 years (mean age, 34 years). Inclusion criteria required patients to have molar-supported permanent dentition free of any edentulous spaces and no clinically significant occlusal interference, as well as one or more permanent molars or premolars requiring new or replacement Class I or II restorations. Two of the authors examined the restorations using modified U.S. Public Health Service/Ryge criteria for color match, marginal adaptation, anatomy, surface roughness, marginal staining, interfacial staining, proximal and occlusal contacts, secondary caries, postoperative sensitivity and luster.
RESULTS: The two authors examined all restorations at the one-year recall visit, 58 at the two-year visit, 47 at the three-year visit, 39 at the four-year visit and 41 at the eight-year visit (16 Class I and 25 Class II restorations). During the eight-year period, they detected no changes with respect to surface roughness, postoperative sensitivity or secondary caries. The majority of changes recorded were for marginal adaptation at occlusal (29 percent) and proximal (16 percent) surfaces and marginal staining at occlusal (15 percent) and proximal (32 percent) surfaces. The McNemar test showed significant changes between baseline and the eight-year evaluation only for marginal adaptation at occlusal surfaces (P = .0047) and marginal staining at proximal surfaces (P = .04). None of the restorations failed.
CONCLUSION: Most of the restorations maintained good quality during the observation period. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: Beautiful restorative material and FL-Bond bonding system, when placed in Class I and II preparations, achieved clinically acceptable results after eight years of service.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2007        PMID: 17473040     DOI: 10.14219/jada.archive.2007.0233

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


  15 in total

1.  Eight-year randomized clinical evaluation of Class II nanohybrid resin composite restorations bonded with a one-step self-etch or a two-step etch-and-rinse adhesive.

Authors:  Jan W V van Dijken; Ulla Pallesen
Journal:  Clin Oral Investig       Date:  2014-10-31       Impact factor: 3.573

Review 2.  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

3.  Microleakage in Sub-Gingival Class II Preparations Restored Using Two Different Liners for Open Sandwich Technique Supplemented With or Without Ultrasonic Agitation: An In Vitro Study.

Authors:  Hitesh Chandar Gyanani; Naveen Chhabra; Nimisha Chinmay Shah; Pratik Subash Jais
Journal:  J Clin Diagn Res       Date:  2016-03-01

4.  Long-term fluoride exchanges at restoration surfaces and effects on surface mechanical properties.

Authors:  Steven Naoum; Elizabeth Martin; Ayman Ellakwa
Journal:  ISRN Dent       Date:  2013-08-19

5.  Clinical evaluation of giomer- and resin-modified glass ionomer cement in class V noncarious cervical lesions: An in vivo study.

Authors:  Kn Jyothi; S Annapurna; Anil S Kumar; P Venugopal; Cm Jayashankara
Journal:  J Conserv Dent       Date:  2011-10

6.  A Deep Morphological Characterization and Comparison of Different Dental Restorative Materials.

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

7.  Shear bond strengths of composite resin and giomer to mineral trioxide aggregate at different time intervals.

Authors:  Amir-Ahmad Ajami; Mahmoud Bahari; Arezoo Hassanpour-Kashani; Mehdi Abed-Kahnamoui; Ayda Savadi-Oskoee; Farhad Azadi-Oskoee
Journal:  J Clin Exp Dent       Date:  2017-07-01

8.  Effect of 15% carbamide peroxide bleaching gel on color stability of giomer and microfilled composite resin: an in vitro comparison.

Authors:  Narmin Mohammadi; Soodabeh Kimyai; Mehdi Abed-Kahnamoii; Mohammad-Esmaeel Ebrahimi-Chaharom; Alireza Sadr; Mehdi Daneshi
Journal:  Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal       Date:  2012-11-01

9.  Effects of surface treatments of conventional glass-ionomer on shear bond strength to giomer.

Authors:  Soodabeh Kimyai; Narmin Mohammadi; Parnian Alizadeh Oskoee; Mohammad Esmaeel Ebrahimi Chaharom; Mahmood Bahari; Alireza Sadr; Ghazaleh Ahmadizenouz
Journal:  Dent Res J (Isfahan)       Date:  2012-11

10.  The effect of different beverages on surface hardness of nanohybrid resin composite and giomer.

Authors:  Saijai Tanthanuch; Boonlert Kukiattrakoon; Chantima Siriporananon; Nawanda Ornprasert; Wathu Mettasitthikorn; Salinla Likhitpreeda; Sulawan Waewsanga
Journal:  J Conserv Dent       Date:  2014-05
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.