Uzay Koc Vural1, Saadet Gokalp2, Arlin Kiremitci2. 1. Department of Restorative Dentistry, Hacettepe University, 06100, Sıhhıye/Ankara, Turkey. uzaykoc@gmail.com. 2. Department of Restorative Dentistry, Hacettepe University, 06100, Sıhhıye/Ankara, Turkey.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare the clinical performance of cavities with no lining and lining with resin-modified glass ionomer (RMGIC) for the treatment of root surface carious lesions. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study included 39 patients (mean age, 39.6 years) who visited the university hospital for the treatment of at least 2 root surface carious lesions. After caries removal, the depth, length, and height of the cavities were measured. Using a paired-tooth design and simple randomization technique, the cavities were assigned to one of two groups that were either unlined or lined with RMGIC (Glass Liner II). All cavities were restored with a nanohybrid resin-based composite (Clearfil Majesty Esthetic). One hundred restorations (50 lined, 50 unlined) were placed. Two examiners other than the operator blindly evaluated the restorations at the follow-ups according to the modified Havemann criteria for marginal adaptation, anatomic form, marginal staining, caries in the adjacent tooth structure, caries at the cavosurface margin, and tooth sensitivity. Chi-square, Fisher's exact, Mann-Whitney U, and Cochran Q tests were used for the analysis (p < 0.05). RESULTS: At the 5-year follow-up, 12 restorations were failed. However, there was no significant difference between the marginal adaptation and marginal staining of the materials (p = 0.526 and p = 0.893, respectively). Four caries lesions were detected in the adjacent tooth structure and at the cavosurface margin at the 5-year assessment. CONCLUSION: There was no significant difference in the clinical performance of the lined and unlined restorations. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The clinical performance of both unlined and RMGIC-lined cavities at the 5-year post-restoration assessment was acceptable. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT03802539.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: To compare the clinical performance of cavities with no lining and lining with resin-modified glass ionomer (RMGIC) for the treatment of root surface carious lesions. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study included 39 patients (mean age, 39.6 years) who visited the university hospital for the treatment of at least 2 root surface carious lesions. After caries removal, the depth, length, and height of the cavities were measured. Using a paired-tooth design and simple randomization technique, the cavities were assigned to one of two groups that were either unlined or lined with RMGIC (Glass Liner II). All cavities were restored with a nanohybrid resin-based composite (Clearfil Majesty Esthetic). One hundred restorations (50 lined, 50 unlined) were placed. Two examiners other than the operator blindly evaluated the restorations at the follow-ups according to the modified Havemann criteria for marginal adaptation, anatomic form, marginal staining, caries in the adjacent tooth structure, caries at the cavosurface margin, and tooth sensitivity. Chi-square, Fisher's exact, Mann-Whitney U, and Cochran Q tests were used for the analysis (p < 0.05). RESULTS: At the 5-year follow-up, 12 restorations were failed. However, there was no significant difference between the marginal adaptation and marginal staining of the materials (p = 0.526 and p = 0.893, respectively). Four caries lesions were detected in the adjacent tooth structure and at the cavosurface margin at the 5-year assessment. CONCLUSION: There was no significant difference in the clinical performance of the lined and unlined restorations. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The clinical performance of both unlined and RMGIC-lined cavities at the 5-year post-restoration assessment was acceptable. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT03802539.
Authors: Brad Strober; Analia Veitz-Keenan; Julie Ann Barna; Abigail G Matthews; Donald Vena; Ronald G Craig; Frederick A Curro; Van P Thompson Journal: J Am Dent Assoc Date: 2013-08 Impact factor: 3.634