One-year clinical evaluation of two high-viscosity glass-ionomer cements in class II restorations of primary molars.
Compomer
high-viscosity glass-ionomer cement
primary teeth
restorative material
Journal
Australian dental journal
ISSN: 1834-7819
Titre abrégé: Aust Dent J
Pays: Australia
ID NLM: 0370612
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
03 2021
03 2021
Historique:
accepted:
13
10
2020
pubmed:
22
10
2020
medline:
2
3
2021
entrez:
21
10
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Little information exists on the clinical performance of restorative materials on primary teeth of preschool children. This study aimed to evaluate clinical performance of compomer, glass-hybrid-added high-viscosity glass-ionomer cement and zinc-added high-viscosity glass-ionomer cement materials in class ΙΙ restorations of primary molars. The study included 251 teeth of 57 patients aged 4-7 years with proximal caries in primary molars. The teeth were divided into three groups, and each restorative material was randomly distributed. Dyract XP, Equia Forte and ChemFil Rock materials were placed after cavity preparation and clinically evaluated at 3, 6, 9 and 12 months using modified United States Public Health Service criteria. Statistical analyses were performed using chi-square and z tests. At the end of 12 months, a total of three restorations in Dyract XP group, 22 in Equia Forte group and 11 in ChemFil Rock group failed in retention criteria. No statistically significant difference existed between retention, colour match and surface texture criteria of all groups at 3 and 6 months, but a statistically significant difference was found at 12 months (P < 0.05). For class ΙΙ restorations of primary molars, the success of compomer material was superior to high-viscosity glass-ionomer materials.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Little information exists on the clinical performance of restorative materials on primary teeth of preschool children. This study aimed to evaluate clinical performance of compomer, glass-hybrid-added high-viscosity glass-ionomer cement and zinc-added high-viscosity glass-ionomer cement materials in class ΙΙ restorations of primary molars.
METHODS
The study included 251 teeth of 57 patients aged 4-7 years with proximal caries in primary molars. The teeth were divided into three groups, and each restorative material was randomly distributed. Dyract XP, Equia Forte and ChemFil Rock materials were placed after cavity preparation and clinically evaluated at 3, 6, 9 and 12 months using modified United States Public Health Service criteria. Statistical analyses were performed using chi-square and z tests.
RESULTS
At the end of 12 months, a total of three restorations in Dyract XP group, 22 in Equia Forte group and 11 in ChemFil Rock group failed in retention criteria. No statistically significant difference existed between retention, colour match and surface texture criteria of all groups at 3 and 6 months, but a statistically significant difference was found at 12 months (P < 0.05).
CONCLUSION
For class ΙΙ restorations of primary molars, the success of compomer material was superior to high-viscosity glass-ionomer materials.
Substances chimiques
Composite Resins
0
Glass Ionomer Cements
0
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
32-40Informations de copyright
© 2020 Australian Dental Association.
Références
American Academy of Pediatric Dentistry. Pediatric restorative dentistry. Pediatr Dent 2018;40:330-342.
Koshy S, Love RM. Endodontic treatment in the primary dentition. Aust Endod J 2004;30:59-68.
Innes NP, Stirrups DR, Evans DJ, Hall N, Leggate M. A novel technique using preformed metal crowns for managing carious primary molars in general practice - a retrospective analysis. Br Dent J 2006;200:461-464.
Santamaría RM, Innes NPT, Machiulskiene V, Schmoeckel J, Alkilzy M, Splieth CH. Alternative caries management options for primary molars: 2.5-year outcomes of a randomised clinical trial. Caries Res. 2018;51:605-614.
Chau NPT, Pandit S, Cai JN, Lee MH, Jeon JG. Relationship between fluoride release rate and anti-cariogenic biofilm activity of glass ionomer cements. Dent Mater 2015;31:e100-e108.
Friedl K, Hiller KA, Friedl KH. Clinical performance of a new glass ionomer based restoration system: a retrospective cohort study. Dent Mater 2011;27:1031-1037.
Oralhealthgroup. The Evolution of Glass Ionomer Restorative Materials 2016. URL: ‘https://www.oralhealthgroup.com/features/evolution-glass-ionomer-restorative-materials/’. Accessed March, 2020.
Diem VT, Tyas MJ, Ngo HC, Phuong LH, Khanh ND. The effect of a nano-filled resin coating on the 3-year clinical performance of a conventional high-viscosity glass-ionomer cement. Clin Oral Investig 2014;18:753-759.
Klinke T, Daboul A, Turek A, Frankenberger R, Hickel R, Biffar R. Clinical performance during 48 months of two current glass ionomer restorative systems with coatings: a randomized clinical trial in the field. Trials 2016;17:239.
Al-Angari SS, Hara AT, Chu TM, Platt J, Eckert G, Cook NB. Physicomechanical properties of a zinc-reinforced glass ionomer restorative material. J Oral Sci 2014;56:11-16.
Zoergiebel J, Ilie N. Evaluation of a conventional glass ionomer cement with new zinc formulation: effect of coating, aging and storage agents. Clin Oral Investig 2013;17:619-626.
Hickel R, Dasch W, Janda R, Tyas M, Anusavice K. New direct restorative materials. FDI Commission Project. Int Dent J 1998;48:3-16.
Asmussen E, Peutzfeldt A. Long-term fluoride release from a glass ionomer cement, a compomer, and from experimental resin composites. Acta Odontol Scand 2002;60:93-97.
Yildiz E, Simsek M, Pamir Z. Fracture strength of restorations in proximal cavities of primary molars. Scanning 2016;38:43-49.
Dias AGA, Magno MB, Delbem ACB, Cunha RF, Maia LC, Pessan JP. Clinical performance of glass ionomer cement and composite resin in class II restorations in primary teeth: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Dent 2018;73:1-13.
Soares CJ, Faria-E-Silva AL, Rodrigues MP, et al. Polymerization shrinkage stress of composite resins and resin cements - what do we need to know? Braz Oral Res 2017;31(suppl 1):e62.
Meereis CTW, Münchow EA, de Oliveira da Rosa WL, da Silva AF, Piva E. Polymerization shrinkage stress of resin-based dental materials: a systematic review and meta-analyses of composition strategies. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater 2018;82:268-281.
Hickel R, Kaaden C, Paschos E, Buerkle V, García-Godoy F, Manhart J. Longevity of occlusally-stressed restorations in posterior primary teeth. Am J Dent 2005;18:198-211.
Welbury RR, Shaw AJ, Murray JJ, Gordon PH, McCabe JF. Clinical evaluation of paired compomer and glass ionomer restorations in primary molars: final results after 42 months. Br Dent J 2000;189:93-97.
Qvist V, Poulsen A, Teglers PT, Mjör IA. The longevity of different restorations in primary teeth. Int J Paediatr Dent 2010;20:1-7.
Ryge G. Clinical criteria. Int Dent J 1980;30:347-358.
Frankl SH, Shiere R, Fogels HP. Should the parent remain with the child in the dental operatory? J Dent Child 1962;29:150-163.
Ekstrand KR, Ricketts DN, Kidd EA. Reproducibility and accuracy of three methods for assessment of demineralization depth of the occlusal surface: an in vitro examination. Caries Res 1997;31:224-231.
Fanning EA. A longitudinal study of tooth formation and root resorption. N Z Dent J 1961;57:202-217.
Babaji P. Crowns in pediatric dentistry. New Delhi: Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers, 2015.
Atieh M. Stainless steel crown versus modified open-sandwich restorations for primary molars: a 2-year randomized clinical trial. Int J Paediatr Dent 2008;18:325-332.
Kim DA, Abo-Mosallam H, Lee HY, Lee JH, Kim HW, Lee HH. Biological and mechanical properties of an experimental glass-ionomer cement modified by partial replacement of CaO with MgO or ZnO. J Appl Oral Sci 2015;23:369-375.
Mobarak E, El-Deeb H, Daifalla LE, et al. Survival of multiple-surface ART restorations using a zinc-reinforced glass-ionomer restorative after 2 years: a randomized triple-blind clinical trial. Dent Mater 2019;35:e185-e192.
Gurgan S, Kutuk ZB, Ergin E, Oztas SS, Cakir FY. Clinical performance of a glass ionomer restorative system: a 6-year evaluation. Clin Oral Investig 2017;21:2335-2343.
Fotiadou C, Frasheri I, Reymus M, et al. Corrigendum: a 3-year controlled randomized clinical study on the performance of two glass-ionomer cements in Class II cavities of permanent teeth. Quintessence Int 2019;51:e1-e11.
Kupietzky A, Atia Joachim D, Tal E, Moskovitz M. Long-term clinical performance of heat-cured high-viscosity glass ionomer class II restorations versus resin-based composites in primary molars: a randomized comparison trial. Eur Arch Paediatr Dent 2019;20:451-456.
Kutuk ZB, Vural UK, Cakir FY, Miletic I, Gurgan S. Mechanical properties and water sorption of two experimental glass ionomer cements with hydroxyapatite or calcium fluorapatite formulation. Dent Mater J 2019;38:471-479.
Bueno LS, Silva RM, Magalhães APR, et al. Positive correlation between fluoride release and acid erosion of restorative glass-ionomer cements. Dent Mater 2019;35:135-143.
Lazaridou D, Belli R, Krämer N, Petschelt A, Lohbauer U. Dental materials for primary dentition: are they suitable for occlusal restorations? A two-body wear study. Eur Arch Paediatr Dent 2015;16:165-172.
Ghaderi F, Mardani A. Clinical success rate of compomer and amalgam class II restorations in first primary molars: a two-year study. J Dent Res Dent Clin Dent Prospects 2015;9:92-95.
Yilmaz Y, Eyuboglu O, Kocogullari ME, Belduz N. A one-year clinical evaluation of a high-viscosity glass ionomer cement in primary molars. J Contemp Dent Pract 2006;7:71-78.
Pascon FM, Kantovitz KR, Caldo-Teixeira AS, et al. Clinical evaluation of composite and compomer restorations in primary teeth: 24-month results. J Dent 2006;34:381-388.
Cehreli ZC, Cetinguc A, Cengiz SB, Altay AN. Clinical performance of pulpotomized primary molars restored with resin-based materials. 24-month results. Am J Dent 2006;19:262-266.
Konde S, Raj S, Jaiswal D. Clinical evaluation of a new art material: nanoparticulated resin-modified glass ionomer cement. J Int Soc Prevent Communit Dent 2012;2:42-47.
Marquillier T, Doméjean S, Le Clerc J, et al. The use of FDI criteria in clinical trials on direct dental restorations: a scoping review. J Dent 2018;68:1-9.