PURPOSE: To evaluate the 2-year clinical performance of two polyacid-modified resin composites and two resin-modified glass ionomers in Class V carious cavities. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 120 Class V cavities were selected and 30 cavities were restored with one of two resin-modified glass ionomer materials (Fuji II LC Improved and Vitremer) and two polyacid-modified resin composites (Dyract and Compoglass) in Class V carious cavities after 2 years. The restorations were clinically evaluated after 1 and 2 years using the USPHS criteria. RESULTS: One-year findings revealed a significant difference in color match between Vitremer and other materials (P < 0.05) and no significant difference was found for the other criteria. Two-year results indicated a significant difference between resin-modified glass ionomers and polyacid-modified resin composite materials. The difference between Compoglass and Dyract was not statistically significant whereas the difference between Vitremer and Fuji II LC was statistically significant. Caries was not recorded at any evaluation period.
PURPOSE: To evaluate the 2-year clinical performance of two polyacid-modified resin composites and two resin-modified glass ionomers in Class V carious cavities. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 120 Class V cavities were selected and 30 cavities were restored with one of two resin-modified glass ionomer materials (Fuji II LC Improved and Vitremer) and two polyacid-modified resin composites (Dyract and Compoglass) in Class V carious cavities after 2 years. The restorations were clinically evaluated after 1 and 2 years using the USPHS criteria. RESULTS: One-year findings revealed a significant difference in color match between Vitremer and other materials (P < 0.05) and no significant difference was found for the other criteria. Two-year results indicated a significant difference between resin-modified glass ionomers and polyacid-modified resin composite materials. The difference between Compoglass and Dyract was not statistically significant whereas the difference between Vitremer and Fuji II LC was statistically significant. Caries was not recorded at any evaluation period.
Authors: B L Chadwick; P M Dummer; F D Dunstan; A S Gilmour; R J Jones; C J Phillips; J Rees; S Richmond; J Stevens; E T Treasure Journal: Qual Health Care Date: 1999-09
Authors: Shariq Najeeb; Zohaib Khurshid; Muhammad Sohail Zafar; Abdul Samad Khan; Sana Zohaib; Juan Manuel Nuñez Martí; Salvatore Sauro; Jukka Pekka Matinlinna; Ihtesham Ur Rehman Journal: Int J Mol Sci Date: 2016-07-14 Impact factor: 5.923