Literature DB >> 30527586

A randomized controlled evaluation of posterior resin restorations of an altered resin modified glass-ionomer cement with claimed bioactivity.

Jan W V van Dijken1, Ulla Pallesen2, Ana Benetti2.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this randomized controlled prospective clinical trial was to evaluate the short time clinical behaviour of an altered resin modified glass-ionomer cement (RMGIC), which is claimed to possess bioactivity, in posterior restorations and to compare it intraindividually with a nanofilled resin composite.
METHODS: Totally 78 pairs Class II and 4 pairs Class I restorations were placed in 29 female and 38 male participants with a mean age of 58.3 years (range 37-86). Each patient received at random at least one pair of, as similar as possible, Class II or Class I restorations. In the first cavity of each pair, the modified flowable RMGIC (ACTIVA Bioactive; AB) was placed after phosphoric acid etching of the cavity and without adhesive, according to the instructions of the manufacturer. In the other cavity a well established nanofilled resin composite (CeramX; RC) with a single step self-etch adhesive (Xeno Select) was placed. The restorations were evaluated using slightly modified USPHS criteria at baseline, 6 and 12 months. Caries risk and parafunctional habits of the participants were estimated.
RESULTS: 158 restorations, 8 Class I and 150 Class II, were evaluated at the one year recalls. At baseline two failed restorations were observed (2AB), at 6 months six failures (5AB, 1RC) and at 12 months another thirteen failed restorations were observed (12AB, 1RC). This resulted in annual failure rates of 24.1% for the AB and 2.5% for RC (p<0.0001). The main reasons for failure for AB were lost restorations (5), postoperative symptoms (4) and secondary caries (3). Do to the unacceptable very high one-year failure frequency, the clinical study was stopped and no further evaluation will be performed. SIGNIFICANCE: The use of the AB restorative in Class II cavities, applied as instructed by the manufacturer after a short phosphoric acid pretreatment but without adhesive system, resulted in a non-acceptable very high failure frequency after a one year period. Further studies should be conducted using a bonding agent.
Copyright © 2018 The Academy of Dental Materials. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Bioactive; Clinical; Composite resin; Glass ionomer; Posterior; Self etch adhesive

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2018        PMID: 30527586     DOI: 10.1016/j.dental.2018.11.027

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Dent Mater        ISSN: 0109-5641            Impact factor:   5.304


  10 in total

1.  In-vitro evaluation of the shear bond strength and fluoride release of a new bioactive dental composite material.

Authors:  Hasna Rifai; Syed Qasim; Syed Mahdi; Martijn-Jacky Lambert; Ralph Zarazir; Fransesco Amenta; Sara Naim; Carina Mehanna
Journal:  J Clin Exp Dent       Date:  2022-01-01

2.  Biocompatibility of new bioactive resin composite versus calcium silicate cements: an animal study.

Authors:  Ashraf Abou ElReash; Hamdi Hamama; Walied Abdo; Qiqi Wu; Ahmed Zaen El-Din; Xie Xiaoli
Journal:  BMC Oral Health       Date:  2019-08-22       Impact factor: 2.757

Review 3.  Scoping review of trials evaluating adhesive strategies in pediatric dentistry: where do simplified strategies lie?

Authors:  António H S Delgado; Hasan Jamal; Anne Young; Paul Ashley
Journal:  BMC Oral Health       Date:  2021-01-19       Impact factor: 2.757

4.  Comparison of microleakage between different restorative materials to restore marginal gap at crown margin.

Authors:  Satheesh B Haralur; Ghaseb Ahmed Al Ghaseb; Norah Ali Alqahtani; Bader Alqahtani
Journal:  PeerJ       Date:  2021-02-25       Impact factor: 2.984

5.  Effect of Bioinductive Cavity Liners on Shear Bond Strength of Dental Composite to Dentin.

Authors:  Saba Tohidkhah; Elham Ahmadi; Mahdi Abbasi; Reza Morvaridi Farimani; Ladan Ranjbar Omrani
Journal:  Biomed Res Int       Date:  2022-03-18       Impact factor: 3.411

6.  An in vitro micro-CT assessment of bioactive restorative materials interfacial adaptation to dentin.

Authors:  Priyanka Angadala; Jyothi Mandava; Ravichandra Ravi; Koteswar Rao Hanumanthu; Prasanthi Penmatsa; Hema Pulidindi
Journal:  Dent Res J (Isfahan)       Date:  2022-07-18

7.  Renewal MI Dental Composite Etch and Seal Properties.

Authors:  Nabih Alkhouri; Wendy Xia; Paul F Ashley; Anne M Young
Journal:  Materials (Basel)       Date:  2022-08-08       Impact factor: 3.748

8.  Comparative Assessment of Different Pre-Treatment Bonding Strategies to Improve the Adhesion of Self-Adhesive Composites to Dentin.

Authors:  Magali Inglês; Joana Vasconcelos E Cruz; Ana Mano Azul; Mário Polido; António H S Delgado
Journal:  Polymers (Basel)       Date:  2022-09-21       Impact factor: 4.967

Review 9.  Current perspectives on dental adhesion: (1) Dentin adhesion - not there yet.

Authors:  Jorge Perdigão
Journal:  Jpn Dent Sci Rev       Date:  2020-09-23

10.  One-year clinical results of restorations using a novel self-adhesive resin-based bulk-fill restorative.

Authors:  Andreas Rathke; Frank Pfefferkorn; Michael K McGuire; Rick H Heard; Rainer Seemann
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2022-03-10       Impact factor: 4.379

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.