Literature DB >> 33201411

Three-year performance of a nano-filled resin-modified glass ionomer cement in class II primary molar restorations.

A Dermata1, S N Papageorgiou2, N Kotsanos3.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To compare the clinical failure rate of two resin-modified glass ionomer cements (RMGICs) used for Class II primary molar restorations over a 3-year period.
METHODS: Healthy, cooperative children aged 4-8 years with carious, asymptomatic primary molars requiring class II restorations received either nano-filled (Ketac Nano, 3 M ESPE) or regular (Vitremer, 3 M ESPE) RMGIC restorations. These were blindly assessed semiannually for 3 years using the modified USPHS criteria with all-cause failure as primary outcome and failure for each criterion as secondary outcome. Data was analysed with Fisher's exact tests and survival analysis with robust standard errors at 5%.
RESULTS: Outcome assessment included 159 teeth at 12 months, 141 teeth at 24 months, and 98 teeth at 36 months. No difference in all-cause failure was found between regular and nano-filled RMGIC at 12 (8.6% versus 14.1%), 24 (9.0% versus 14.9%) or 36 months (7.4% versus 20.5%) (P > 0.05). The nano-filled RMGIC retained better its anatomical form and the regular RMGIC likewise its marginal integrity (P < 0.05), but only in the acceptable range (Alpha-Bravo). Overall, survival analysis found no significant difference for all-cause failure [hazard ratio (HR) 0.58; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.25-1.31; P = 0.19] or any secondary outcomes other than contact point integrity. Finally, subgroup analysis by jaw indicated that the regular RMGIC performed better than the nano-filled RMGIC for mandibular molars (HR 0.36; 95% CI 0.13-0.96; P = 0.04), but further data are needed.
CONCLUSION: Nano-filled RMGIC showed less occlusal wear but more mild marginal defects than regular RMGIC, but these findings were of limited clinical significance and both materials performed favourably for 3 years.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Class II restoration; Clinical trial; Composite resin; Dental caries; Glass ionomer cement; Primary molar

Year:  2020        PMID: 33201411     DOI: 10.1007/s40368-020-00574-2

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur Arch Paediatr Dent        ISSN: 1818-6300


  3 in total

Review 1.  Milestones in adhesion: glass-ionomer cements.

Authors:  Martin J Tyas
Journal:  J Adhes Dent       Date:  2003       Impact factor: 2.359

2.  Nano-ionomer tooth repair in pediatric dentistry.

Authors:  Constance Marie Killian; Theodore P Croll
Journal:  Pediatr Dent       Date:  2010 Nov-Dec       Impact factor: 1.874

3.  Two-year clinical performance in primary teeth of nano-filled versus conventional resin-modified glass-ionomer restorations.

Authors:  Sahar E Abo-Hamar; Shaimaa S El-Desouky; Nahed A Abu Hamila
Journal:  Quintessence Int       Date:  2015-05       Impact factor: 1.677

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.