OBJECTIVE: To compare the clinical performance of two glass-ionomer cements in combination with two light-cured coatings in Class II cavities. METHOD AND MATERIALS: In total, 43 Equia Fil/Equia Coat and 42 Fuji IX GP Fast/Fuji Coat LC restorations were placed, in 34 patients. Only Class II cavities with two- or three-surface restorations were included. The clinical performance was evaluated at baseline, after 1, 2, and 3 years using the FDI criteria. For the statistical analysis, Fisher exact test, Wilcoxon signed-rank test and Mann-Whitney U test were applied. The success and survival of the restorations were calculated with the Kaplan-Meier method and a log-rank test was used to detect significant differences between the tested materials. RESULTS: At the 3-year recall, no significant differences could be detected between the two glass-ionomer cements for any of the evaluated criteria (Mann-Whitney U test, P > .05). When comparing the baseline with the recall data at 3 years for each material separately, significant changes could be observed in both materials for the criteria "surface luster," "fracture of material and retention," and "approximal anatomical form" (Wilcoxon signed-rank test, P < .05). Additionally, the Equia Fil restorations showed a notable change for the criteria "marginal adaptation" (Wilcoxon signed-rank test, P = .039). At the 3-year follow up, the Equia Fil and the Fuji IX GP Fast restorations exhibited an overall survival rate of 86.21% and 84.0%, respectively. CONCLUSION: The two glass-ionomer cements tested performed similarly in Class II cavities in adult patients, with a moderate to high failure rate after 3 years.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: To compare the clinical performance of two glass-ionomer cements in combination with two light-cured coatings in Class II cavities. METHOD AND MATERIALS: In total, 43 Equia Fil/Equia Coat and 42 Fuji IX GP Fast/Fuji Coat LC restorations were placed, in 34 patients. Only Class II cavities with two- or three-surface restorations were included. The clinical performance was evaluated at baseline, after 1, 2, and 3 years using the FDI criteria. For the statistical analysis, Fisher exact test, Wilcoxon signed-rank test and Mann-Whitney U test were applied. The success and survival of the restorations were calculated with the Kaplan-Meier method and a log-rank test was used to detect significant differences between the tested materials. RESULTS: At the 3-year recall, no significant differences could be detected between the two glass-ionomer cements for any of the evaluated criteria (Mann-Whitney U test, P > .05). When comparing the baseline with the recall data at 3 years for each material separately, significant changes could be observed in both materials for the criteria "surface luster," "fracture of material and retention," and "approximal anatomical form" (Wilcoxon signed-rank test, P < .05). Additionally, the Equia Fil restorations showed a notable change for the criteria "marginal adaptation" (Wilcoxon signed-rank test, P = .039). At the 3-year follow up, the Equia Fil and the Fuji IX GP Fast restorations exhibited an overall survival rate of 86.21% and 84.0%, respectively. CONCLUSION: The two glass-ionomer cements tested performed similarly in Class II cavities in adult patients, with a moderate to high failure rate after 3 years.
Entities:
Keywords:
Class II restorations; Equia; FDI criteria; amalgam alternatives; clinical study; glass-ionomer cement; permanent teeth