SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Journal of Gazi University Health Sciences Institute / 2021 / Cilt: 3 Sayı: 2

Clinical and Radiological Performance of High-viscosity Glass Lonomer Cement and Compomer in Class II Restorations in Primary Molar Teeth

Zeliha Hatipoğlu PALAZ
Nese AKAL
Pages
45–58
Publication Date
2021-09-10
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

It has been concluded that retention, surface texture and color match results of Equia Fil showed less successful at the end of 12 months.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:The present study aimed to evaluate clinical and radiographical success of high viscosity glass ionomer cement and compomer in primary molar teeth for 12 months.
📊
Key Findings & Data:High viscosity glass ionomer cement Equia Fil (GC Corporation, Tokyo, Japan) and compomer Dyract XP (Dentsply De Trey, Konstanz, Germany) restorations were placed in 30 children between the ages of 4 and 9 with symmetrical proximal surface caries in primary molars.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:It has been concluded that retention, surface texture and color match results of Equia Fil showed less successful at the end of 12 months.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:compomer · Equia Fil · glass ionomer cement

Abstract

The present study aimed to evaluate clinical and radiographical success of high viscosity glass ionomer cement and compomer in primary molar teeth for 12 months. High viscosity glass ionomer cement Equia Fil (GC Corporation, Tokyo, Japan) and compomer Dyract XP (Dentsply De Trey, Konstanz, Germany) restorations were placed in 30 children between the ages of 4 and 9 with symmetrical proximal surface caries in primary molars. Restorations were evaluated clinically according to the modified United States Public Health Service (USPHS) criteria at the 1-week, 3-month, 6-month, 12-month recall and radiographically at 6 and 12 months. When the restorations are evaluated in terms of marginal discoloration, marginal adaptation, postoperative sensitivity, secondary caries, anatomical form and radiographic findings, no statistically significant difference was observed between two groups. There was a statistically significant difference between the groups for the retention, color match and surface texture scores at 12 months. It has been concluded that retention, surface texture and color match results of Equia Fil showed less successful at the end of 12 months. Therefore, selection of samples with small cavities for Equia Fil can increase the success rate of the restoration. Further research is required to confirm the results.

🔖

Cite This Article

PALAZ, Z. H., AKAL, N. (2021). Clinical and Radiological Performance of High-viscosity Glass Lonomer Cement and Compomer in Class II Restorations in Primary Molar Teeth. Journal of Gazi University Health Sciences Institute, Cilt: 3 Sayı: 2, 45–58. https://ajindex.com/articles/906236

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (13)

  1. Burke, F.J.T. & Bardha, J.S. (2013). A retrospective, practice-based, clinical evaluation of Fuji IX restorations aged over five years placed in load-bearing cavities. British Dental Journal, 215 (6), 1-5.
  2. Çelik, Ç., Arhun, N. & Yamanel, K. (2014). Clinical Evaluation of Resin-Based Composites in Posterior Restorations: A 3-Year Study. Medical Principles and Practice, 23 (5), 453–459.
  3. Daou, M.H., Attin, T. & Göhring, T.N. (2009). Clinical Success of Compomer and Amalgam Restorations in Primary Molars. Schweiz Monatsschr Zahnmed, 119 (11), 1082–1088.
  4. De Amorim, R.G., Leal, S.C., Mulder, J., Creugers, N.J. & Frencken, J.E. (2014). Amalgam and ART restorations in children: a controlled clinical trial. Clin Oral Investig, 18 (1), 117–124.
  5. Demirci, M., Yıldız, E. & Uysal, Ö. (2008). Comparative Clinical Evaluation of Different Treatment Approaches Using a Microfilled Resin Composite and a Compomer in Class III Cavities: Two-year Results. Operative Dentistry, 33 (1), 7-14.
  6. Extrand, K.R., Ricketts, D.N.J. & Kidd, E.A.M. (1997). Reproducibility and accuracy of three methods for assessment of demineralization depth on the occlusal surface: An in vitro examination. Caries Research, 31 (3), 224-231.
  7. Forsten, L. (1998). Fluoride release and uptake by glass ionomers and related materials and its clinical effect. Biomaterials, 19 (6), 503-508.
  8. Gurgan, S., Kutuk, Z.B., Yalcin, Cakir F. & Ergin, E. (2020). A randomized controlled 10 years follow up of a glass ionomer restorative material in class I and class II cavities. Journal of Dentistry, 94, 1-8.
  9. Hilgert, L.A., de Amorim, R.G., Leal, S.C., Mulder, J., Creugers, N.J. & Frencken, J.E. (2014). Is high-viscosity glass-ionomer-cement a successor to amalgam for treating primary molars? Dental Materials, 30 (10), 1172-1178.
  10. Kupietzky, A., Atia Joachim, D., Tal, E. & Moskovitz, M. (2019). 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. European Archives of Pediatric Dentistry, 20 (5), 451-456.
  11. Markovic, D. & Peric, T. (2008). Clinical evaluation of glass-ionomer tunnel restorations in primary molars: 36 months results. Australian Dental Journal, 53, 41–45.
  12. Nicholson, J.W. (2007). Polyacid-modified composite resins (“compomers”) and their use in clinical dentistry. Dental Materials, 23 (5), 615–622.
  13. Papagiannoulis, L., Kakaboura, A., Pantaleon, F. & Kavvadia, K. (1999). Clinical evaluation of a polya