Literature DB >> 22770485

Randomized clinical trial of two resin-modified glass ionomer materials: 1-year results.

J Perdigão1, M Dutra-Corrêa, S H C Saraceni, M T Ciaramicoli, V H Kiyan.   

Abstract

With institutional review board approval, 33 patients who needed restoration of noncarious cervical lesions (NCCL) were enrolled in this study. A total of 92 NCCL were selected and randomly assigned to three groups: (1) Ambar (FGM), a two-step etch-and-rinse adhesive (control), combined with the nanofilled composite resin Filtek Supreme Plus (FSP; 3M ESPE); (2) Fuji II LC (GC America), a traditional resin-modified glass ionomer (RMGIC) restorative material; (3) Ketac Nano (3M ESPE), a nanofilled RMGIC restorative material. Restorations were evaluated at six months and one year using modified United States Public Health Service parameters. At six months after initial placement, 84 restorations (a 91.3% recall rate) were evaluated. At one year, 78 restorations (a 84.8% recall rate) were available for evaluation. The six month and one year overall retention rates were 93.1% and 92.6%, respectively, for Ambar/FSP; 100% and 100%, respectively, for Fuji II LC; and 100% and 100%, respectively, for Ketac Nano with no statistical difference between any pair of groups at each recall. Sensitivity to air decreased for all three adhesive materials from the preoperative to the postoperative stage, but the difference was not statistically significant. For Ambar/FSP, there were no statistical differences for any of the parameters from baseline to six months and from baseline to one year. For Fuji II LC, surface texture worsened significantly from baseline to six months and from baseline to one year. For Ketac Nano, enamel marginal staining increased significantly from baseline to one year and from six months to one year. Marginal adaptation was statistically worse at one year compared with baseline only for Ketac Nano. When parameters were compared for materials at each recall, Ketac Nano resulted in significantly worse color match than any of the other two materials at any evaluation period. At one year, Ketac Nano resulted in significantly worse marginal adaptation than the other two materials and worse marginal staining than Fuji II LC. Surface texture was statistically worse for Fuji II LC compared with the other two materials at all evaluation periods. The one-year retention rate was statistically similar for the three adhesive materials. Nevertheless, enamel marginal deficiencies and color mismatch were more prevalent for Ketac Nano. Surface texture of Fuji II LC restorations deteriorated quickly.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22770485     DOI: 10.2341/11-415-C

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Oper Dent        ISSN: 0361-7734            Impact factor:   2.440


  9 in total

1.  Comparative Evaluation of Microleakage Between Nano-Ionomer, Giomer and Resin Modified Glass Ionomer Cement in Class V Cavities- CLSM Study.

Authors:  Indira Priyadarshini Bollu; Archana Hari; Jayaprakash Thumu; Lakshmi Deepa Velagula; Nagesh Bolla; Sujana Varri; Srikanth Kasaraneni; Siva Venkata Malathi Nalli
Journal:  J Clin Diagn Res       Date:  2016-05-01

2.  Microleakage of Class V Methacrylate and Silorane-based Composites and Nano-ionomer Restorations in Fluorosed Teeth.

Authors:  Fereshteh Shafiei; Mohadese Abouheydari
Journal:  J Dent (Shiraz)       Date:  2015-06

3.  Effect of Adhesive Pretreatments on Marginal Sealing of Aged Nano-ionomer Restorations.

Authors:  Fereshteh Shafiei; Sahar Akbarian; Mohammad Karim Etminan
Journal:  J Dent Res Dent Clin Dent Prospects       Date:  2015-09-16

Review 4.  Sealing Ability of Nano-ionomer in Primary Teeth: An ex vivo Study.

Authors:  Fawaz Siddiqui; Swati Karkare
Journal:  Int J Clin Pediatr Dent       Date:  2016-09-27

5.  Evaluation of the Mechanical Properties of Three Resin-Modified Glass-Ionomer Materials.

Authors:  Heleine Maria Chagas Rêgo; Sheila Butler; Maria Jacinta Coelho Santos
Journal:  Biomed Res Int       Date:  2022-08-02       Impact factor: 3.246

6.  Microleakage of Three Types of Glass Ionomer Cement Restorations: Effect of CPP-ACP Paste Tooth Pretreatment.

Authors:  Maryam Doozandeh; Fereshteh Shafiei; Mostafa Alavi
Journal:  J Dent (Shiraz)       Date:  2015-09

Review 7.  Modifications in Glass Ionomer Cements: Nano-Sized Fillers and Bioactive Nanoceramics.

Authors:  Shariq Najeeb; Zohaib Khurshid; Muhammad Sohail Zafar; Abdul Samad Khan; Sana Zohaib; Juan Manuel Nuñez Martí; Salvatore Sauro; Jukka Pekka Matinlinna; Ihtesham Ur Rehman
Journal:  Int J Mol Sci       Date:  2016-07-14       Impact factor: 5.923

8.  One-year comparative evaluation of Ketac Nano with resin-modified glass ionomer cement and Giomer in noncarious cervical lesions: A randomized clinical trial.

Authors:  Bollu Indira Priyadarshini; Thumu Jayaprakash; Bolla Nagesh; Chukka Ram Sunil; Varri Sujana; Velagala L Deepa
Journal:  J Conserv Dent       Date:  2017 May-Jun

9.  Glass ionomer cements compared with composite resin in restoration of noncarious cervical lesions: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Isis Morais Bezerra; Arella Cristina Muniz Brito; Simone Alves de Sousa; Bianca Marques Santiago; Yuri Wanderley Cavalcanti; Leopoldina de Fátima Dantas de Almeida
Journal:  Heliyon       Date:  2020-05-21
  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.