M A de Araujo1, R M Araújo, A L Marsilio. 1. Department of Restorative Dentistry, School of Dentistry, State University of São Paulo, Paulista-UNESP, São José dos Campos, Brazil.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: A restorative material for Class III cavities must, besides being functional, be esthetically satisfactory, providing good working conditions and several shade and color options. A clinical evaluation was initiated to compare the suitability of resin composite and glass-ionomer cement materials for such restorations. METHOD AND MATERIALS: Forty-two Class III conservative cavities, esthetically important because of facial extensions, were selected. Resin composite restorations were placed in 21 cavities, and the remaining 21 were restored with glass-ionomer cement. The following characteristics were studied: color or esthetics, anatomic shape, surface texture, staining, marginal infiltration, dental plaque retention, and occurrence of fracture. After 24 months, the restorations were evaluated. RESULTS: The only statistically significant difference between the resin composite and glass-ionomer cement restorations in the experimental period involved color or esthetics. CONCLUSION: Resin composites and glass-ionomer materials provide excellent functional and esthetic results in Class III cavities when properly indicated.
OBJECTIVE: A restorative material for Class III cavities must, besides being functional, be esthetically satisfactory, providing good working conditions and several shade and color options. A clinical evaluation was initiated to compare the suitability of resin composite and glass-ionomer cement materials for such restorations. METHOD AND MATERIALS: Forty-two Class III conservative cavities, esthetically important because of facial extensions, were selected. Resin composite restorations were placed in 21 cavities, and the remaining 21 were restored with glass-ionomer cement. The following characteristics were studied: color or esthetics, anatomic shape, surface texture, staining, marginal infiltration, dental plaque retention, and occurrence of fracture. After 24 months, the restorations were evaluated. RESULTS: The only statistically significant difference between the resin composite and glass-ionomer cement restorations in the experimental period involved color or esthetics. CONCLUSION: Resin composites and glass-ionomer materials provide excellent functional and esthetic results in Class III cavities when properly indicated.