Class I Dental Caries
Conditions
Keywords
glass ionomer cements, bioactive materials
Brief summary
The aim of this study is to compare the clinical performances of high-viscosity glass ionomer (GI), glass carbomer (GC), zirconia-reinforced GI (ZIR), and bulk-fill (BF) composite resin restorations.For this purpose, two calibrated operators placed 128 restorations in 30 patients with a mean age of 21 years. The restorations will be evaluated by one examiner at baseline and at 6, 12, 18,24, and 48 months using the modified US Public Health Service criteria. The data will statistically analyzed.
Interventions
PROCEDUREclass I restoration placement
zirconomer, glass carbomer, glass ionomer and composite resin class I restorations were placed.
Sponsors
Hacettepe University
Study design
Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Intervention model
FACTORIAL
Primary purpose
TREATMENT
Masking
SINGLE (Outcomes Assessor)
Intervention model description
randomized-split mouth clinical trial
Eligibility
Sex/Gender
ALL
Age
18 Years to No maximum
Healthy volunteers
Yes
Inclusion criteria
* patients presenting 1) at least four single-surface occlusal caries on their posterior molar teeth (first and/or second molars); 2) teeth to be restored had to be vital and without pulpal or periodontal disease, pain, and preoperative sensitivity; 3) teeth should be in occlusion; and 4) must agree to come to follow-up appointments.
Exclusion criteria
* patients with 1) poor oral hygiene, serious health problems, and/or heavy bruxism; 2) partly erupted teeth; 3) absence of adjacent and antagonist teeth; 4) teeth with interproximal caries; and 5) inability to attend recalls.
Design outcomes
Primary
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Retention Alpha for at least 90% of the restorations | 24 months | The primary factor for determining the clinical performance of a restorative material is the retention rate. It represents the survival rates of the restorations after a period of time. According to ADA guidelines, a restorative material should show at leat 90% alpha retention rate after 18 months to be considered as clinically acceptable. The retention is assesed as alpha (retentive restoratation) or charlie (failed restoration). Clinical evaluation is performed to examine if the restoration is in place or has fallen. |
Secondary
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| marginal adaptation score alpha | 24 months | It represents the marginal integrity of the restorations. It is scored as alpha (perfect marginal adaptation), bravo (detectable marginal discrepency, clinically acceptable) or charlie (marginal crevice, clinically unacceptable). The examination of marginal adaptation is performed by clinical examination of the restoration with probe. |
Countries
Turkey (Türkiye)
Outcome results
None listed