Sevil Gurgan1, Zeynep Bilge Kutuk2, Esra Ergin1, Sema Seval Oztas1, Filiz Yalcin Cakir1. 1. School of Dentistry, Department of Restorative Dentistry, Hacettepe University, Sihhiye, 06100, Ankara, Turkey. 2. School of Dentistry, Department of Restorative Dentistry, Hacettepe University, Sihhiye, 06100, Ankara, Turkey. dt.zeynepbilge@yahoo.com.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study is to evaluate the long-term clinical performance of a glass ionomer (GI) restorative system in the restoration of posterior teeth compared with a micro-filled hybrid posterior composite. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 140 (80 Cl1 and 60 Cl2) lesions in 59 patients were restored with a GI system (Equia) or a micro hybrid composite (Gradia Direct). Restorations were evaluated at baseline and yearly during 6 years according to the modified-USPHS criteria. Negative replicas at each recall were observed under SEM to evaluate surface characteristics. Data were analyzed with Cohcran's Q and McNemar's tests (p < 0.05). RESULTS: One hundred fifteen (70 Cl1 and 45 Cl2) restorations were evaluated in 47 patients with a recall rate of 79.6% at 6 years. Significant differences were found in marginal adaptation and marginal discoloration for both restorative materials for Cl1 and Cl2 restorations (p < 0.05). However, none of the materials were superior to the other (p > 0.05). A significant decrease in color match was observed in Equia restorations (p < 0.05). Only one Cl2 Equia restoration was missing at 3 years and another one at 4 years. No failures were observed at 5 and 6 years. Both materials exhibited clinically successful performance after 6 years. SEM evaluations were in accordance with the clinical findings. CONCLUSIONS: Both materials showed a good clinical performance for the restoration of posterior teeth during the 6-year evaluation. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The clinical effectiveness of Equia and Gradia Direct Posterior was acceptable in Cl1 and Cl2 cavities subsequent to 6-year evaluation.
OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study is to evaluate the long-term clinical performance of a glass ionomer (GI) restorative system in the restoration of posterior teeth compared with a micro-filled hybrid posterior composite. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 140 (80 Cl1 and 60 Cl2) lesions in 59 patients were restored with a GI system (Equia) or a micro hybrid composite (Gradia Direct). Restorations were evaluated at baseline and yearly during 6 years according to the modified-USPHS criteria. Negative replicas at each recall were observed under SEM to evaluate surface characteristics. Data were analyzed with Cohcran's Q and McNemar's tests (p < 0.05). RESULTS: One hundred fifteen (70 Cl1 and 45 Cl2) restorations were evaluated in 47 patients with a recall rate of 79.6% at 6 years. Significant differences were found in marginal adaptation and marginal discoloration for both restorative materials for Cl1 and Cl2 restorations (p < 0.05). However, none of the materials were superior to the other (p > 0.05). A significant decrease in color match was observed in Equia restorations (p < 0.05). Only one Cl2 Equia restoration was missing at 3 years and another one at 4 years. No failures were observed at 5 and 6 years. Both materials exhibited clinically successful performance after 6 years. SEM evaluations were in accordance with the clinical findings. CONCLUSIONS: Both materials showed a good clinical performance for the restoration of posterior teeth during the 6-year evaluation. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The clinical effectiveness of Equia and Gradia Direct Posterior was acceptable in Cl1 and Cl2 cavities subsequent to 6-year evaluation.
Authors: Paulo A Da Rosa Rodolpho; Tiago A Donassollo; Maximiliano S Cenci; Alessandro D Loguércio; Rafael R Moraes; Ewald M Bronkhorst; Niek J M Opdam; Flávio F Demarco Journal: Dent Mater Date: 2011-07-16 Impact factor: 5.304