Danuchit Banomyong1, Choltacha Harnirattisai, Michael F Burrow. 1. Department of Operative Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand Melbourne Dental School, the University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Abstract
AIM: To investigate the effect of resin-modified, glass-ionomer cement lining on the quality of posterior resin composite restorations, bonded with a two-step, total-etch or self-etching adhesive, at 1 year. METHODS:Patients with 1-4 moderate-to-deep, primary occlusal caries in molars were informed and recruited. A total of 110 composite restorations were placed in 75 participants, with one of four restorative procedures: (a) bonded with a total-etch adhesive (Single Bond 2); (b) lined with glass-ionomer cement (Fuji Lining LC), and then bonded with total-etch adhesive; (c) bonded with a self-etching adhesive (Clearfil SE Bond); and (d) lined with glass-ionomer cement, and then bonded with self-etching adhesive. RESULTS: At 1 year, 57 patients (86 restorations) attended the recall. Each of the restorations was evaluated and scored from 1 (clinically excellent) to 5 (clinically poor) using the following criteria: (a) patient satisfaction; (b) fracture and retention; (c) marginal adaptation; (d) recurrent caries; and (e) post-operative sensitivity. At 1 year, the qualities of the restorations were not significantly affected by the placement of glass-ionomer cement lining, regardless of the adhesive used (P > 0.05). Most of the restorations were scored 1 for all criteria. CONCLUSIONS: The benefit of placing a glass-ionomer cement liner in resin composite restoration is questionable.
RCT Entities:
AIM: To investigate the effect of resin-modified, glass-ionomer cement lining on the quality of posterior resin composite restorations, bonded with a two-step, total-etch or self-etching adhesive, at 1 year. METHODS:Patients with 1-4 moderate-to-deep, primary occlusal caries in molars were informed and recruited. A total of 110 composite restorations were placed in 75 participants, with one of four restorative procedures: (a) bonded with a total-etch adhesive (Single Bond 2); (b) lined with glass-ionomer cement (Fuji Lining LC), and then bonded with total-etch adhesive; (c) bonded with a self-etching adhesive (Clearfil SE Bond); and (d) lined with glass-ionomer cement, and then bonded with self-etching adhesive. RESULTS: At 1 year, 57 patients (86 restorations) attended the recall. Each of the restorations was evaluated and scored from 1 (clinically excellent) to 5 (clinically poor) using the following criteria: (a) patient satisfaction; (b) fracture and retention; (c) marginal adaptation; (d) recurrent caries; and (e) post-operative sensitivity. At 1 year, the qualities of the restorations were not significantly affected by the placement of glass-ionomer cement lining, regardless of the adhesive used (P > 0.05). Most of the restorations were scored 1 for all criteria. CONCLUSIONS: The benefit of placing a glass-ionomer cement liner in resin composite restoration is questionable.