BibTex RIS Cite

-

Year 2014, , 244 - 255, 06.08.2014

Zeynep Kütük , Sevil Gürgan Filiz Yalçın Çakır , Esra Ergin Sema Öztaş

https://doi.org/10.7126/cdj.58140.1008002560
Cited By: 3

Abstract

Objectives: To evaluate the 36  month clinical performance of a current glass-ionomer restorative system by comparing with a micro-filled resin composite, on Class II cavities.Materials and Methods: Sixty cavities in 26 patients were randomly divided into two groups according to the restorative systems used (n=30); the cavities in Group 1 were restored with a glass-ionomer restorative system (EQUIA/GC); packable glass-ionomer (Fuji IX GP EXTRA/GC)+self-adhesive nano-filled coating (G-Coat PLUS/GC); whereas the ones in Group  2 were restored with a micro-filled composite (Gradia Direct/GC)+a self-etch adhesive (G-Bond/GC). The restorations were evaluated at 1 week (baseline), 6, 12, 18, 24 and 36 months according to the modified USPHS criteria. The data were statistically evaluated by Pearson Chi-Square test (p=0.05).Results: Fifty-three restorations were evaluated in 23  patients after 36  months.  All the restorations in the two groups were scored as Alpha for recurrent caries, surface texture, postoperative sensitivity and color match. For marginal adaptation, 6 restorations (23.7%) in Group 1 and 8 restorations (29.6%) in Group 2 were scored as Bravo. Two restorations (7.6%) in Group 1 and 5 restorations (18.5%) in Group 2 were scored as Bravo for marginal discoloration. One restoration (3.8%) in Group  1 was scored as Charlie for anatomic form and retention because of marginal fracture within restorative material.  However, there were no significant differences between the clinical performances of the materials (p>0.05).Conclusions: Both materials exhibited a similar and clinically acceptable performance on moderate Class II cavities after 36-months

Keywords

Glass-ionomer cement Surface coating agent Composite resin Clinical performance

References

  • KAYNAKLAR
  • de Andrade AK, Duarte RM, Medeiros e Silva FD, Batista AU, Lima KC, Pontual ML, Montes MA. 30-month randomised clinical trial to evaluate the clinical performance of a nanofill and a nanohybrid composite. J Dent. 2011 Jan;39(1):8-15.
  • Brunthaler A, König F, Lucas T, Sperr W, Schedle A. Longevity of direct resin composite restorations in posterior teeth. Clinical Oral Investigations 2003;7:63-70.
  • Turkun LS, Aktener BO, Ates M. Clinical evaluation of different posterior resin composite materials: a 7-year report. Quintessence Int 2003;34(6):418-26.
  • Loguercio AD, Reis A, Rodrigues Filho LE, Busato AL. One-year clinical evaluation of posterior packable resin composite restorations. Oper Dent 2001;26(5):427-34.
  • Ernst CP, Martin M, Stuff S, Willershausen B. Clinical performance of a packable resin composite for posterior teeth after three years. Clin Oral Investig 2001;5(3):148-55.
  • Gordan VV, Mondragon E, Watson RE, Garvan C, Mjör IA. A clinical evaluation of a self-etching primer and a giomer restorative material: results at eight years. J Am Dent Assoc 2007 May;138(5):621-7
  • Uzer Çelik E, Ermiş B. Koruyucu rezin uygulamasının yüksek viskoziteli geleneksel cam iyonomer simanın mikrosertliği üzerine etkisinin in vitro olarak değerlendirilmesi. Cumhuriyet Üniversitesi Diş Hekimliği Fakültesi Dergisi 2008: 11-2.
  • Bağlar S, Dallı M, Çolak H, Ercan E, M. Hamidi M.M. iki farklı restoratif materyalin sınıf V kavitelerdeki mikrosızıntıya etkisi. Cumhuriyet Dental Journal 2010: 13-1.
  • Friedl K, Hiller KA, Friedl KH. Clinical performance of a newglass ionomer based restoration system: a retrospective cohort study. Dent Mater. 2011 Oct;27(10):1031-7.
  • Wang XY, Yap AU, Ngo HC. Effect of early water exposure on the strength of glass ionomer restoratives. Oper Dent 2006; 31: 584-9.
  • Şener Y, Koyutürk AE. Üç farklı cam iyonomer simanın yüzey sertliklerinin karşılaştırılması. Cumhuriyet Üniversitesi Diş Hek Fak Derg 2006; 9: 91-4.
  • Earl MS, Mount GJ, Hume WR. The effect of varnishes and other surface treatments on water movement across the glass ionomer cement surface. Aust Dent J 1989; 34: 326-9.1.
  • Mitropoulos P, Rahiotis C, Stamatakis H, Kakaboura A. Diagnostic performance of the visual caries classification system ICDASII versus radiography and micro-computed tomography for proximal caries detection: an in vitro study. J Dent. 2010; 38(11):859-67.
  • Palaniappan S, Elsen L, Lijnen I, Peumans M, Van Meerbeek B, Lambrechts P. Three-year randomised clinical trial to evaluate the clinical performance, quantitative and qualitative wear patterns of hybrid composite restorations. Clin Oral Investig. 2010;14(4):441-58.
  • Lohbauer U. Dental glass ionomer cements as permanent fillig materials? – Properties, limitations and future trends. Materials. 2010: 3:76-96.
  • Burke FJ, Lucarotti PS, Holder R. Outcome of direct restorations placed within the general dental services in England and Wales (Part 4): influence of time and place. J Dent. 2005;33(10):837-47.
  • R. Hickel, J.-F. Roulet, S. Bayne, S. D. Heintze, I. A. Mjör, M. Peters, V. Rousson, R. Randall, G. Schmalz, M. Tyas, G. Vanherle. Recommendations for conducting controlled clinical studies of dental restorative materials. Clin Oral Invest. 2007;9(6):546.
  • Bellinger DC, Trachtenberg F, Daniel D,Zhang A, Tavares MA, McKinlay S. A dose-effect analysis of children’s exposure to dental amalgam and neuropsychological function: The new England children’s amalgam trial. J Am Dent Assoc. 2007; 138(9):1210-6.
  • Quist V, Laurberg L, Poulsen A, Teglers PT. Eight-year study on conventional glass ionomer and amalgam restorations in primary teeeth. Acta Odontol Scand. 2004; 62(1):37-45.
  • Lo EC, Luo Y, Fan MW, Wei SHY. Clinical investigation of two glass- ionomer restoratives used with the atraumatic restorative treatment approach in China: two-years results. Caries Res. 2001; 35:458-463.
  • Smales RJ, Yip HK. The atraumatic restorative treatment (ART) approach for the magement of dental caries. Quintessence Int. 2002; 33:427-432.
  • Taifour D, Frencken JE, Beiruti N, Van't Hof MA, Truin GJ. Effectiveness of glass-ionomer (ART) and amalgam restorations in the deciduous dentition: results after 3 years. Caries Res. 2002; 36:437-444.
  • Yip HK, Smales RJ, Gao W, Peng D. The effects of two cavity preparation methods on the longevity of glass ionomer cement restorations. J Am Dent Assoc. 2002; 133:744-750.
  • Scholtanus JD, Huysmans MCDNJM. Clinical failure of Class-II restorations of a highly viscous glass-ionomer material over a 6-year period: A retrospective study. J Dent. 2007;35:156-162.
  • Yılmaz Y, Eyuboğlu Ö, Kocaoğulları ME, Belduz M. A one-year clinical evalution of a high-viscosity glass ionomer cement in primary molars. J Contemp Dent Prac. 2006; 7(1):071-078.
  • Turkun L.S., and Kanik O. Clinical evaluation of new glass ionomer-coating combinated systems for 18-months. J Dent Res. 2010; 89: Spec Issue: B.

Güncel bir cam iyonomer restoratif sistemin 36-aylık klinik performansının değerlendirilmesi

Year 2014, , 244 - 255, 06.08.2014

Zeynep Kütük , Sevil Gürgan Filiz Yalçın Çakır , Esra Ergin Sema Öztaş

https://doi.org/10.7126/cdj.58140.1008002560
Cited By: 3

Abstract

Objectives: To evaluate the 36 month clinical performance of a current glass-ionomer restorative system by comparing with a micro-filled resin composite, on Class II cavities.

Materials and Methods: Sixty cavities in 26 patients were randomly divided into two groups according to the restorative systems used (n=30); the cavities in Group 1 were restored with a glass-ionomer restorative system (EQUIA/GC); packable glass-ionomer (Fuji IX GP EXTRA/GC)+self-adhesive nano-filled coating (G-Coat PLUS/GC); whereas the ones in Group 2 were restored with a micro-filled composite (Gradia Direct/GC)+a self-etch adhesive (G-Bond/GC). The restorations were evaluated at  1 week (baseline), 6, 12, 18, 24 and 36 months according to the modified USPHS criteria. The data were statistically evaluated by Pearson Chi-Square test (p=0. 05).

Results: Fifty-three restorations were evaluated in 23 patients after 36 months.  All the restorations in the two groups were scored as Alpha for recurrent caries, surface texture, postoperative sensitivity and color match. For marginal adaptation, 6 restorations (23.7%) in Group 1 and 8 restorations (29.6%) in Group 2 were scored as Bravo. Two restorations ( 7.6%) in Group 1 and 5 restorations (18.5%) in Group 2 were scored as Bravo for marginal discoloration. One restoration (3.8%) in Group 1 was scored as Charlie for anatomic form and retention because of marginal fracture within restorative material.  However, there were no significant differences between the clinical performances of the materials (p>0. 05).

Conclusions: Both materials exhibited a similar and clinically acceptable performance on moderate Class II cavities after 36-months.

 

ÖZET

Amaç: Bu çalışmada, güncel bir cam-iyonomer restoratif sistemin II. sınıf kavitelerdeki 36-aylık klinik performansını, mikro-dolduruculu bir kompozit rezinle kıyaslayarak değerlendirilmek amaçlanmıştır.

     Gereç ve Yöntem: Yirmi altı hastadaki toplam 60 II. sınıf kavite, kullanılan restoratif sisteme göre rastgele iki gruba ayrılmıştır (n=30). Grup 1’deki kavitelere cam iyonomer restoratif sistem (EQUIA/GC); kondanse edilebilir cam-iyonomer Fuji IX GP EXTRA+self-adeziv nano-dolduruculu yüzey örtücü G-Coat PLUS; Grup 2’deki kavitelere ise, mikro-dolduruculu kompozit rezin (Gradia Direct/GC)+self-etch adeziv (G-Bond/GC) uygulanmıştır. Restorasyonlar uygulandıktan 1 hafta sonra (başlangıçta)  ve 6.,12.,18., 24. Ve 36. aylarda modifiye USPHS kriterlerine göre değerlendirilmiş, elde edilen veriler Pearson Ki-kare testi ile istatistiksel olarak analiz edilmiştir (p=0. 05).

     Bulgular: 36. ayda, 23 hastada 53 restorasyon değerlendirilmiştir. Retansiyon, anatomik form, sekonder çürük, yüzey yapısı, post-operatif duyarlılık ve renk uyumu yönünden her iki grupta tüm restorasyonlar Alfa olarak skorlanmıştır. Grup 1’de 6 (%23.7), Grup 2’de 8 (%26.6)restorasyonun kenar uyumu; Grup1’de 2 (%7.6), Grup 2’de ise 5(%18.5) restorasyonun kenar renklenmesi Bravo olarak skorlanmıştır. Grup1’de 1 restorasyonda kenar kırığı gözlenmiş,anatomik form ve retensiyon yönünden Çarli olarak skorlanmıştır.  Ancak, materyallerin klinik performasları arasında  istatistiksel olarak anlamlı fark yoktur(p>0. 05).

     Sonuçlar: 36 ay sonunda, II. Sınıf kavitelerin restorasyonunda her iki materyal benzer ve kabul edilir klinik performans göstermiştir.

Keywords

Anahtar Kelimeler: Cam-iyonomer siman; yüzey örtücü ajan; kompozit rezin; klinik performans

References

  • KAYNAKLAR
  • de Andrade AK, Duarte RM, Medeiros e Silva FD, Batista AU, Lima KC, Pontual ML, Montes MA. 30-month randomised clinical trial to evaluate the clinical performance of a nanofill and a nanohybrid composite. J Dent. 2011 Jan;39(1):8-15.
  • Brunthaler A, König F, Lucas T, Sperr W, Schedle A. Longevity of direct resin composite restorations in posterior teeth. Clinical Oral Investigations 2003;7:63-70.
  • Turkun LS, Aktener BO, Ates M. Clinical evaluation of different posterior resin composite materials: a 7-year report. Quintessence Int 2003;34(6):418-26.
  • Loguercio AD, Reis A, Rodrigues Filho LE, Busato AL. One-year clinical evaluation of posterior packable resin composite restorations. Oper Dent 2001;26(5):427-34.
  • Ernst CP, Martin M, Stuff S, Willershausen B. Clinical performance of a packable resin composite for posterior teeth after three years. Clin Oral Investig 2001;5(3):148-55.
  • Gordan VV, Mondragon E, Watson RE, Garvan C, Mjör IA. A clinical evaluation of a self-etching primer and a giomer restorative material: results at eight years. J Am Dent Assoc 2007 May;138(5):621-7
  • Uzer Çelik E, Ermiş B. Koruyucu rezin uygulamasının yüksek viskoziteli geleneksel cam iyonomer simanın mikrosertliği üzerine etkisinin in vitro olarak değerlendirilmesi. Cumhuriyet Üniversitesi Diş Hekimliği Fakültesi Dergisi 2008: 11-2.
  • Bağlar S, Dallı M, Çolak H, Ercan E, M. Hamidi M.M. iki farklı restoratif materyalin sınıf V kavitelerdeki mikrosızıntıya etkisi. Cumhuriyet Dental Journal 2010: 13-1.
  • Friedl K, Hiller KA, Friedl KH. Clinical performance of a newglass ionomer based restoration system: a retrospective cohort study. Dent Mater. 2011 Oct;27(10):1031-7.
  • Wang XY, Yap AU, Ngo HC. Effect of early water exposure on the strength of glass ionomer restoratives. Oper Dent 2006; 31: 584-9.
  • Şener Y, Koyutürk AE. Üç farklı cam iyonomer simanın yüzey sertliklerinin karşılaştırılması. Cumhuriyet Üniversitesi Diş Hek Fak Derg 2006; 9: 91-4.
  • Earl MS, Mount GJ, Hume WR. The effect of varnishes and other surface treatments on water movement across the glass ionomer cement surface. Aust Dent J 1989; 34: 326-9.1.
  • Mitropoulos P, Rahiotis C, Stamatakis H, Kakaboura A. Diagnostic performance of the visual caries classification system ICDASII versus radiography and micro-computed tomography for proximal caries detection: an in vitro study. J Dent. 2010; 38(11):859-67.
  • Palaniappan S, Elsen L, Lijnen I, Peumans M, Van Meerbeek B, Lambrechts P. Three-year randomised clinical trial to evaluate the clinical performance, quantitative and qualitative wear patterns of hybrid composite restorations. Clin Oral Investig. 2010;14(4):441-58.
  • Lohbauer U. Dental glass ionomer cements as permanent fillig materials? – Properties, limitations and future trends. Materials. 2010: 3:76-96.
  • Burke FJ, Lucarotti PS, Holder R. Outcome of direct restorations placed within the general dental services in England and Wales (Part 4): influence of time and place. J Dent. 2005;33(10):837-47.
  • R. Hickel, J.-F. Roulet, S. Bayne, S. D. Heintze, I. A. Mjör, M. Peters, V. Rousson, R. Randall, G. Schmalz, M. Tyas, G. Vanherle. Recommendations for conducting controlled clinical studies of dental restorative materials. Clin Oral Invest. 2007;9(6):546.
  • Bellinger DC, Trachtenberg F, Daniel D,Zhang A, Tavares MA, McKinlay S. A dose-effect analysis of children’s exposure to dental amalgam and neuropsychological function: The new England children’s amalgam trial. J Am Dent Assoc. 2007; 138(9):1210-6.
  • Quist V, Laurberg L, Poulsen A, Teglers PT. Eight-year study on conventional glass ionomer and amalgam restorations in primary teeeth. Acta Odontol Scand. 2004; 62(1):37-45.
  • Lo EC, Luo Y, Fan MW, Wei SHY. Clinical investigation of two glass- ionomer restoratives used with the atraumatic restorative treatment approach in China: two-years results. Caries Res. 2001; 35:458-463.
  • Smales RJ, Yip HK. The atraumatic restorative treatment (ART) approach for the magement of dental caries. Quintessence Int. 2002; 33:427-432.
  • Taifour D, Frencken JE, Beiruti N, Van't Hof MA, Truin GJ. Effectiveness of glass-ionomer (ART) and amalgam restorations in the deciduous dentition: results after 3 years. Caries Res. 2002; 36:437-444.
  • Yip HK, Smales RJ, Gao W, Peng D. The effects of two cavity preparation methods on the longevity of glass ionomer cement restorations. J Am Dent Assoc. 2002; 133:744-750.
  • Scholtanus JD, Huysmans MCDNJM. Clinical failure of Class-II restorations of a highly viscous glass-ionomer material over a 6-year period: A retrospective study. J Dent. 2007;35:156-162.
  • Yılmaz Y, Eyuboğlu Ö, Kocaoğulları ME, Belduz M. A one-year clinical evalution of a high-viscosity glass ionomer cement in primary molars. J Contemp Dent Prac. 2006; 7(1):071-078.
  • Turkun L.S., and Kanik O. Clinical evaluation of new glass ionomer-coating combinated systems for 18-months. J Dent Res. 2010; 89: Spec Issue: B.
There are 27 citations in total.

Details

Primary Language Turkish
Journal Section Original Research Articles
Authors

Zeynep Kütük

Sevil Gürgan

Filiz Yalçın Çakır

Esra Ergin

Sema Öztaş

Publication Date August 6, 2014
Submission Date December 13, 2013
Published in Issue Year 2014

Cite

EndNote Kütük Z, Gürgan S, Yalçın Çakır F, Ergin E, Öztaş S (August 1, 2014) Güncel bir cam iyonomer restoratif sistemin 36-aylık klinik performansının değerlendirilmesi. Cumhuriyet Dental Journal 17 3 244–255.

Cited By

Could bulk fill glass hybrid restorative materials replace composite resins in treating permanent teeth? A randomized controlled clinical trial
Journal of Esthetic and Restorative Dentistry
https://doi.org/10.1111/jerd.13181
Diş Hekimliği Öğrencilerinin Restoratif Diş Tedavisi Preklinik Uygulama Dersine Bakış Açıları ve Stres Seviyelerinin Değerlendirilmesi
Journal of Higher Education and Science
https://doi.org/10.5961/higheredusci.1216054
Restoratif Diş Hekimliğinde Cam İyonomerler
ADO Klinik Bilimler Dergisi
https://doi.org/10.54617/adoklinikbilimler.890514

Cumhuriyet Dental Journal (Cumhuriyet Dent J, CDJ) is the official publication of Cumhuriyet University Faculty of Dentistry. CDJ is an international journal dedicated to the latest advancement of dentistry. The aim of this journal is to provide a platform for scientists and academicians all over the world to promote, share, and discuss various new issues and developments in different areas of dentistry. First issue of the Journal of Cumhuriyet University Faculty of Dentistry was published in 1998. In 2010, journal's name was changed as Cumhuriyet Dental Journal. Journal’s publication language is English.


CDJ accepts articles in English. Submitting a paper to CDJ is free of charges. In addition, CDJ has not have article processing charges.

Frequency: Four times a year (March, June, September, and December)

IMPORTANT NOTICE

All users of Cumhuriyet Dental Journal should visit to their user's home page through the "https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/user" " or "https://dergipark.org.tr/en/user" links to update their incomplete information shown in blue or yellow warnings and update their e-mail addresses and information to the DergiPark system. Otherwise, the e-mails from the journal will not be seen or fall into the SPAM folder. Please fill in all missing part in the relevant field.

Please visit journal's AUTHOR GUIDELINE to see revised policy and submission rules to be held since 2020.