Dental Caries Class II
Conditions
Keywords
glass ionomer cement, composite resin
Brief summary
The aim of this clinical trial was to compare the clinical performances of a glass ionomer restorative system with a micro hybrid resin based composite in extended sized class II cavities. A total of 100 class 2 lesions were restored with a glass ionomer restorative system (Equia Forte) or a micro hybrid composite (G-aenial Posterior). Restorations were evaluated at baseline and yearly during 6 years according to the modified-USPHS criteria. Data were analyzed with Cohcran's Q and McNemar's tests (p\<0.05).
Detailed description
Since the introduction of glass ionomers many modifications of these materials have been performed over the years. Compared to other permanent filling materials like resin-based composites, glass ionomers show several advantages, such as the ability to adhere to moist enamel and dentin and anti-cariogenic properties such as the long-term fluoride release. So, it was doubtful that glass ionomers represent a capable counterpart of amalgam or resin-based composites in posterior teeth.
Interventions
OTHEREquia Forte
Glass ionomer restorative system
OTHERG-aenial Posterior
Micro hybrid composite resin
Sponsors
Hacettepe University
Study design
Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Intervention model
PARALLEL
Primary purpose
TREATMENT
Masking
DOUBLE (Subject, Investigator)
Eligibility
Sex/Gender
ALL
Age
20 Years to 50 Years
Healthy volunteers
Yes
Inclusion criteria
1. a need for at least two but not more than four posterior toothcolored restorations; 2. the presence of teeth to be restored in occlusion; 3. teeth that were symptomless and vital; 4. a normal periodontal status; 5. a good likelihood of recall availability.
Exclusion criteria
1. partly erupted teeth; 2. absence of adjacent and antagonist teeth 3. poor periodontal status; 4. adverse medical history; 5. potential behavioral problems.
Design outcomes
Primary
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Observers evaluated the restorations was performed using the modified United State Public Health Service criteria regarding marginal adaptation. | From baseline to 6 year the change of restorations was evaluated | Marginal adaptation was evaluated by 2 independent clinicians. Visual inspection with a mirror at 18 inches was performed . A score means the higher score of clinical acceptability while C and D score means that the restoration has failed and needs to be replaced. Alpha 1: Harmonious outline Alpha 2: Marginal gap (max 100μ) with discoloration (removable) Bravo: Marginal gap (\> 100μ) with discoloration (unremovable) Charlie: The restoration is fractured or missed. |
| Observers evaluated the restorations was performed using the modified United State Public Health Service criteria regarding marginal discoloration. | From baseline to 6 year the change of restorations was evaluated | Marginal discolouration was evaluated by 2 independent clinicians. Visual inspection with a mirror at 18 inches was performed . A score means the higher score of clinical acceptability while C score means that the restoration has failed and needs to be replaced. Alpha: No discoloration anywhere along the margin between the restoration and the adjacent tooth. Bravo: Slight discoloration along the margin between the restoration and the adjacent tooth. Charlie: The discoloration penetrated along the margin of the restorative material in a pulpal direction. |
| Observers evaluated the restorations was performed using the modified United State Public Health Service criteria regarding retention rate. | From baseline to 6 year the change of restorations was evaluated | Retention rate was evaluated by 2 independent clinicians. Visual inspection with a mirror at 18 inches was performed . A score means the higher score of clinical acceptability while C and D score means that the restoration has failed and needs to be replaced. Alpha 1:Clinically excellent Alpha 2: Clinically good with slight deviations from ideal performance, correction possible without damage of tooth or restoration Bravo: Clinically sufficient with few defects, corrections or repair of the restoration possible Charlie: Restoration is partially missed Delta: Restoration is totally missed |
| Observers evaluated the restorations was performed using the modified United State Public Health Service criteria regarding anatomic form. | From baseline to 6 year the change of restorations was evaluated | Anatomic form was evaluated by 2 independent clinicians. Visual inspection with a mirror at 18 inches was performed . A score means the higher score of clinical acceptability while C score means that the restoration has failed and needs to be replaced. Alpha 1: Continuous with existing anatomical form Alpha 2: Slightly discontinuous due to some chipping on the proximal ridge Bravo: Discontinuous with existing anatomical form due to material loss but proximal contact still present Charlie: Proximal contact is lost with ridge fracture. |
| Observers evaluated the restorations was performed using the modified United State Public Health Service criteria regarding color change | From baseline to 6 year the change of restorations was evaluated | Colour changes was evaluated by 2 independent clinicians. Visual inspection with a mirror at 18 inches was performed . A score means the higher score of clinical acceptability while C score means that the restoration has failedand needs to be replaced. Alpha: The restoration matches the adjacent tooth structure in color and translucency. Bravo: Light mismatch in color, shade or translucency between the restoration and the adjacent tooth. Charlie: The mismatch in color and translucency is outside the acceptable range of tooth color and translucency. |
Countries
Turkey (Türkiye)
Outcome results
None listed