Sevil Gurgan1, Zeynep Bilge Kutuk2, Filiz Yalcin Cakir1, Esra Ergin1. 1. Hacettepe University, Faculty of Dentistry, Department of Restorative Dentistry, Sıhhiye, Ankara Turkey. 2. Hacettepe University, Faculty of Dentistry, Department of Restorative Dentistry, Sıhhiye, Ankara Turkey. Electronic address: zeynepbilge.kutuk@hacettepe.edu.tr.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the durability of a glass ionomer restorative material in Class I and Class II cavities during 10 years compared with a micro filled composite resin. METHODS: Fifty-nine participants (mean age 24 years) received 140 (80 Class I and 60 Class II) glass ionomer (GI) or composite resin (CR) restorations. Evaluation was performed with slightly modified USPHS criteria at baseline, and yearly during the 10 years. Data were analyzed with Cohran's Q and McNemar's tests. RESULTS: Fifty-one patients and 124 restorations (61 GI / 38 Class I - 23 Class II, 63 CR / 38 Class I, 25 Class II) were evaluated after 10 years. The recall rate was 86.4%. The overall clinical recall rate of restorations was 88.6%. The success rate of Class I and II restorations were calculated as 100% for both materials. The cumulative failure rate (CRF) of all Cl I and Cl II GI restorations was 3.17% in total, but CFR was 8 % for Cl II GI restorations. A significant difference was observed between the marginal discoloration scores of restorations at 10 years (p = 0.022). No significant difference was seen between two restorative materials in terms of marginal adaptation (p > 0.05). A significant change was seen in color match of GI restorations at 10 years (p < 0.05). No significant change was found for the anatomical form, secondary caries, postoperative sensitivity, surface texture, and retention for either restorative material (p > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Both tested restorative materials showed an acceptable success rate in the restoration of Class I and Class II cavities during the 10-year follow up.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the durability of a glass ionomer restorative material in Class I and Class II cavities during 10 years compared with a micro filled composite resin. METHODS: Fifty-nine participants (mean age 24 years) received 140 (80 Class I and 60 Class II) glass ionomer (GI) or composite resin (CR) restorations. Evaluation was performed with slightly modified USPHS criteria at baseline, and yearly during the 10 years. Data were analyzed with Cohran's Q and McNemar's tests. RESULTS: Fifty-one patients and 124 restorations (61 GI / 38 Class I - 23 Class II, 63 CR / 38 Class I, 25 Class II) were evaluated after 10 years. The recall rate was 86.4%. The overall clinical recall rate of restorations was 88.6%. The success rate of Class I and II restorations were calculated as 100% for both materials. The cumulative failure rate (CRF) of all Cl I and Cl II GI restorations was 3.17% in total, but CFR was 8 % for Cl II GI restorations. A significant difference was observed between the marginal discoloration scores of restorations at 10 years (p = 0.022). No significant difference was seen between two restorative materials in terms of marginal adaptation (p > 0.05). A significant change was seen in color match of GI restorations at 10 years (p < 0.05). No significant change was found for the anatomical form, secondary caries, postoperative sensitivity, surface texture, and retention for either restorative material (p > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Both tested restorative materials showed an acceptable success rate in the restoration of Class I and Class II cavities during the 10-year follow up.
Authors: Rafael Menezes-Silva; Sofia R Maito Velasco; Eduardo BRESCIANi; Roosevelt da Silva Bastos; Maria Fidela de Lima Navarro Journal: J Appl Oral Sci Date: 2021-03-01 Impact factor: 2.698
Authors: Maja Zečević Čulina; Valentina Brzović Rajić; Ivan Šalinović; Eva Klarić; Luka Marković; Ana Ivanišević Journal: Materials (Basel) Date: 2022-01-25 Impact factor: 3.623