A randomized controlled evaluation of posterior resin restorations of an altered resin modified glass-ionomer cement with claimed bioactivity

被引:62
|
作者
van Dijizen, Jan W., V [1 ]
Pallesen, Ulla [2 ]
Benetti, Ana [2 ]
机构
[1] Umea Univ, Fac Med, Dent Sch, Umea, Sweden
[2] Univ Copenhagen, Fac Hlth & Med Sci, Dept Odontol, Copenhagen, Denmark
关键词
Bioactive; Clinical; Composite resin; Glass ionomer; Posterior; Self etch adhesive; ETCH-AND-RINSE; CALCIUM ALUMINATE CEMENT; STEP SELF-ETCH; CLINICAL-EVALUATION; COMPOSITE RESTORATIONS; FLUORIDE RELEASE; RETENTION; LONGEVITY; ADHESIVES; SALIVA;
D O I
10.1016/j.dental.2018.11.027
中图分类号
R78 [口腔科学];
学科分类号
1003 ;
摘要
Objective. The objective of this randomized controlled prospective clinical trial was to evaluate the short time clinical behaviour of an altered resin modified glass-ionomer cement (RMGIC), which is claimed to possess bioactivity, in posterior restorations and to compare it intraindividually with a nanofilled resin composite. Methods. Totally 78 pairs Class II and 4 pairs Class I restorations were placed in 29 female and 38 male participants with a mean age of 58.3 years (range 37-86). Each patient received at random at least one pair of, as similar as possible, Class II or Class I restorations. In the first cavity of each pair, the modified flowable RMGIC (ACTIVA Bioactive; AB) was placed after phosphoric acid etching of the cavity and without adhesive, according to the instructions of the manufacturer. In the other cavity a well established nanofilled resin composite (CeramX; RC) with a single step self-etch adhesive (Xeno Select) was placed. The restorations were evaluated using slightly modified USPHS criteria at baseline, 6 and 12 months. Caries risk and parafunctional habits of the participants were estimated. Results. 158 restorations, 8 Class I and 150 Class II, were evaluated at the one year recalls. At baseline two failed restorations were observed (2AB), at 6 months six failures (5AB, 1RC) and at 12 months another thirteen failed restorations were observed (12AB, 1RC). This resulted in annual failure rates of 24.1% for the AB and 2.5% for RC (p < 0.0001). The main reasons for failure for AB were lost restorations (5), postoperative symptoms (4) and secondary caries (3). Do to the unacceptable very high one-year failure frequency, the clinical study was stopped and no further evaluation will be performed. Significance. The use of the AB restorative in Class II cavities, applied as instructed by the manufacturer after a short phosphoric acid pretreatment but without adhesive system, resulted in a non-acceptable very high failure frequency after a one year period. Further studies should be conducted using a bonding agent (C) 2018 The Academy of Dental Materials. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
引用
收藏
页码:335 / 343
页数:9
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [21] ORTHODONTIC BONDING WITH GLASS-IONOMER CEMENT AND A RESIN ADHESIVE
    MILLETT, D
    GORDON, PH
    JOURNAL OF DENTAL RESEARCH, 1995, 74 : 461 - 461
  • [22] Short-term clinical evaluation of a resin-modified glass-ionomer luting cement
    Yoneda, S
    Morigami, M
    Sugizaki, J
    Yamada, T
    QUINTESSENCE INTERNATIONAL, 2005, 36 (01): : 49 - 53
  • [23] Water storage effect on the marginal seal of resin-modified glass-ionomer restorations
    Irie, M
    Suzuki, K
    OPERATIVE DENTISTRY, 1999, 24 (05) : 272 - 278
  • [24] Microleakage of glass-ionomer, compomer and resin composite restorations.
    Momoi, Y
    Yamamoto, S
    Kida, K
    Kohno, A
    JOURNAL OF DENTAL RESEARCH, 1998, 77 : 938 - 938
  • [25] Chemical Surface Modification Methods of Resin Composite Repaired with Resin-Modified Glass-Ionomer Cement
    Klaisiri, Awiruth
    Phumpatrakom, Panupat
    Thamrongananskul, Niyom
    EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF DENTISTRY, 2023, 17 (03) : 804 - 808
  • [26] Clinical evaluation of a resin-modified glass-ionomer adhesive system
    Burrow, MF
    Tyas, MJ
    OPERATIVE DENTISTRY, 1998, 23 (06) : 290 - 293
  • [27] Evaluation of stainless steel crowns cemented with glass-ionomer and resin-modified glass-ionomer luting cements
    Yilmaz, Yucel
    Simsek, Sera
    Dalmis, Anya
    Gurbuz, Taskin
    Kocogullari, M. Elcin
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF DENTISTRY, 2006, 19 (02): : 106 - 110
  • [28] Absence of Carious Lesions at Margins of Glass-Ionomer Cement (GIC) and Resin-Modified GIC Restorations: A Systematic Review
    Mickenautsch, Steffen
    Tyas, Martin J.
    Yengopal, Veerasamy
    Oliveira, Luciana B.
    Bonecker, Marcelo
    EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF PROSTHODONTICS AND RESTORATIVE DENTISTRY, 2010, 18 (03): : 139 - 145
  • [29] Bond strengths of polyacid-modified resin composites and a resin-modified glass-ionomer cement to primary dentin
    Çehreli, ZC
    Akca, T
    Altay, N
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF DENTISTRY, 2003, 16 : 47A - 50A
  • [30] Clinical performance of resin-modified glass ionomer cement restorations in primary teeth - A retrospective evaluation
    Croll, TP
    Bar-Zion, V
    Segura, A
    Donly, KJ
    JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN DENTAL ASSOCIATION, 2001, 132 (08): : 1110 - 1116