Clinical performance of a resin-modified glass-ionomer and a compomer in restoring non-carious cervical lesions. 5-year results.
ABSTRACT To evaluate the 5-yr clinical performance of a resin-modified glass-ionomer cement and a polyacid-modified resin composite in restoring non-carious cervical lesions.
Non-carious cervical lesions in 46 incisors, canines, and premolars were restored either with Fuji II LC (n=18) or with Dyract (n=28) in 16 healthy patients. The lesions were restored without cavity preparation strictly according to the manufacturer's instructions. The restorations were clinically evaluated single blind after 5 yrs using modified USPHS criteria.
The percentage of Alfa ratings were as follows (Dyract/Fuji II LC): color match 81.3%/28.6%, surface texture 93.8%/21.4%, anatomic form 75.0%/28.6%, marginal integrity (enamel) 62.5%/42.9%, marginal integrity (dentin) 68.8%/28.6%, marginal discoloration (enamel) 56.3%/42.9%, marginal discoloration (dentin) 68.8%/21.5%. Five-yr data revealed a significant difference between the clinical ratings of Dyract and Fuji II LC for all criteria except marginal integrity and marginal discoloration in enamel. A total of five Dyract restorations and four Fuji II LC restorations failed within the study period.
A considerably high and almost similar overall failure rate was found for both restorative materials in restoring non-carious cervical lesions. However, retained Dyract restorations presented superior clinical performance compared to Fuji II LC restorations.
SourceAvailable from: Maria Jacinta Santos[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: The aim of this review was to assess the effect of different adhesive systems and tooth preparation on the retention of tooth-colored restorative materials placed in non-carious cervical lesions (NCCLs). Randomized clinical trials with a minimum of 3 years of follow-up that evaluated the effectiveness of tooth-colored materials, adhesive systems, and preparation techniques for the restoration of NCCLs were selected. The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), EMBASE (OVID), the Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature database (LILACS), and Medline (OVID) electronic databases were searched from 1990 to 2013. Twenty-seven randomized clinical trials were included and reviewed. Meta-analysis was used to determine the relative risk of loss of tooth-colored NCCL restorations between different categories of adhesive systems. The effect of tooth preparation could not be similarly analyzed. The current best evidence indicates that a glass ionomer cement has a significantly lower risk of loss of a NCCL restoration compared to either a three-step etch-and-rinse or a two-step etch-and-rinse adhesive system; a three-step etch-and-rinse adhesive system has a significantly lower risk of loss of a NCCL restoration compared to a two-step etch-and-rinse adhesive system. No significant difference could be observed in the risk of loss of a tooth-colored NCCL restoration between a three-step etch-and-rinse adhesive system and either a two-step self-etch or a one-step self-etch adhesive system.Clinical Oral Investigations 03/2014; 18(5). DOI:10.1007/s00784-014-1220-7 · 2.29 Impact Factor
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: The first purpose of present study was to compare the anticariogenic effect of compomer, resin modified glass ionomer cement and composite (RMGIC). The second purpose was to evaluate the recently introduced methods, which use confocal scanning micro-scope, in detecting initial caries around restoration. 241.5mm cavities were prepared from the recently extracted 50 human teeth on the buccal or lingual surface. The prepared teeth were randomly devided into 5 groups and restored with each filling material. Group 1: Dyract AP, Group 2: compoglass F, Group 3: F2000, Group 4: Z100. Group 5:Fuji II LC. The teeth were stored for 30 days in the distilled water, then stored in the buffer solution for artificial caries development: pH 4.3, lactic acid 100 mM, calcium 16 mM, phosphate 8mM, sodium azide 3mM. Then, the samples were sectioned longitudinally and examined with confical scanning microscope. The results showed that the use of compomer and resin modified glass ionomer cement showed caries inhibition zone whereas the composite did not. There was no difference in the width of caries inhibition zone between compomers and RMGIC. The confocal scanning microscope was useful in detecting initial caries around restoration.01/2002; 27(1). DOI:10.5395/JKACD.2002.27.1.012
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Background/purpose Noncarious cervical lesions (NCCLs) are among the most frequent conditions requiring resin restorations. However, the major shortcoming of these restorations is limited longevity. The purpose of this study was to compare the clinical performance of self-etching (SE) adhesives with or without selective enamel etching in NCCLs. Materials and methods An initial literature search, with strict inclusion and exclusion criteria, was conducted in MEDLINE, Web of Science, the Wiley Online database, and the Cochrane Controlled Trials Center. Eight trials were included. Restoration retention, prevalence of marginal defects, and marginal discoloration were evaluated. Data were analyzed using the Mantel–Haenszel method with 95% confidence intervals. Results Results demonstrated that fewer marginal defects (P = 0.0001) and discoloration (P = 0.008) were observed with the selective enamel etching approach. The risk ratio (RR) values of the selective etching group and the nonselective etching group for marginal defects and discoloration were 0.58 (0.44, 0.77) and 0.48 (0.28, 0.83), respectively. For restoration retention, the differences between the two groups were not significant (P = 0.44). The RR values of the selective etching group and the nonselective etching group for restoration retention were 1.01 (0.98, 1.04) and 1.02 (0.96, 1.08), according to a fixed-effects model at 2- and 5-year observation time, respectively. Conclusion Prior enamel etching resulted in fewer marginal defects and marginal discoloration, compared with using the SE approach alone. For restoration retention, the differences between the two groups were not significant. Additional longer follow ups and large-scale investigations are expected to assess possible advantages of selective enamel etching in NCCL restorations.Journal of dental sciences 05/2014; 9(4). DOI:10.1016/j.jds.2014.03.002 · 0.47 Impact Factor