A field-trial of two restorative materials used with atraumatic restorative treatment in rural Turkey: 24-month results.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to investigate the clinical performance of high-strength glass ionomer cement (HSGIC) and resin-modified glass ionomer (RMGIC) in single and multiple surface carious cavities in the field conditions. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A split-mouth design, including ninety-one fillings placed on contra lateral molar pairs of 37 children, was used in permanent dentition. As filling materials, a HSGIC (Ketac Molar/3M ESPE) and a RMGIC (Vitremer/ 3M ESPE) were used with the Atraumatic Restorative Treatment (ART). Baseline and 6, 12 and 24-month evaluations of the fillings were made with standard-ART and USPHS criteria by two examiners with kappa values of 0.92 and 0.87 for both criteria. RESULTS: According to the USPHS criteria, the retention rates of RMGIC and HSGIC restorations were 100% and 80.9% for single surface, and 100% and 41.2% for multiple surface restorations after 24 months, respectively. Irrespective of surface number, RMGIC was significantly superior to HSGIC (p= 0.004), according to both standard-ART and USPHS criteria. CONCLUSION: The results indicate that RMGIC may be an alternative restorative technique in comparison to high-strength GIC applications in ART-field-trials. However, further clinical and field trials are needed to support this conclusion.

A field-trial of two restorative materials used with atraumatic restorative treatment in rural Turkey: 24-month results

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to investigate the clinical performance of high-strength glass ionomer cement (HSGIC) and resin-modified glass ionomer (RMGIC) in single and multiple surface carious cavities in the field conditions. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A split-mouth design, including ninety-one fillings placed on contra lateral molar pairs of 37 children, was used in permanent dentition. As filling materials, a HSGIC (Ketac Molar/3M ESPE) and a RMGIC (Vitremer/ 3M ESPE) were used with the Atraumatic Restorative Treatment (ART). Baseline and 6, 12 and 24-month evaluations of the fillings were made with standard-ART and USPHS criteria by two examiners with kappa values of 0.92 and 0.87 for both criteria. RESULTS: According to the USPHS criteria, the retention rates of RMGIC and HSGIC restorations were 100 percent and 80.9 percent for single surface, and 100 percent and 41.2 percent for multiple surface restorations after 24 months, respectively. Irrespective of surface number, RMGIC was significantly superior to HSGIC (p= 0.004), according to both standard-ART and USPHS criteria. CONCLUSION: The results indicate that RMGIC may be an alternative restorative technique in comparison to high-strength GIC applications in ART-field-trials. However, further clinical and field trials are needed to support this conclusion.