ABSTRACT
The aim of this study was to compare the treatment results using four different types of tooth colored materials for restoring class V lesions. A total of 197 class V restorations (n = 197) were placed by one dentist in 37 patients on incisors, canines and premolars. The fillings were placed due to different indications: erosion/non-carious cervical defects (n = 69), primary carious lesions (n = 57), and for replacing defective existing fillings (n = 71). The teeth were assigned on a random basis to four groups for restoration with either a composite (group 1: n = 36; Tetric, Vivadent), or a polyacid-modified resin composite (group 2: n = 79; Dyract, Dentsply), or one of two different resin-modified glass ionomer cements (group 3: n = 51, Fuji II LC,GC; group 4: n = 31, Photac-Fil, Espe). The restorations were evaluated by a single-blind design, according to a modified USPHS system 36 months following placement. Statistical analysis was completed with the Pearson Chi-square test for comparing the results of the four groups (P < 0.05). Additionally, the survival rates were analyzed with the Kaplan-Meier estimator and the Log-rank test (P < 0.05). The Alpha ratings were as follows (Tetric/Dyract/Fuji II LC/Photac Fil): shade match (86%/77%/58%/40%), surface texture (81%/83%/16%/9%), marginal integrity (enamel) (73%/67%/61%/61%), marginal integrity (dentin) (86%/70%/55%/61%), marginal discoloration (enamel) (59%/44%/58%/52%), marginal discoloration (dentin) (82%/84%/71%/48%), anatomic contours (91%/83%/39%/35%). One Tetric restoration, five Dyract restorations, two Fuji II LC restorations and three Photac restorations were dislodged within the study period. The retention of the restorations showed no significant difference among the four materials. However, the clinical performance of the restorations retained over the 3-year period showed distinct differences for the four materials. The best clinical performance was observed for the resin composite, whereas the quality of the Dyract restorations without enamel etching was worse. The poorest results were obtained for the restorations with the resin-modified glass ionomers.
Subject(s)
Dental Materials , Dental Restoration, Permanent/classification , Tooth Diseases/therapy , Adult , Aged , Chi-Square Distribution , Color , Compomers/chemistry , Composite Resins/chemistry , Dental Bonding , Dental Caries/therapy , Dental Marginal Adaptation , Dental Materials/chemistry , Follow-Up Studies , Glass Ionomer Cements/chemistry , Humans , Linear Models , Methacrylates/chemistry , Middle Aged , Resin Cements/chemistry , Resins, Synthetic/chemistry , Silicates/chemistry , Single-Blind Method , Statistics as Topic , Surface Properties , Tooth Discoloration/etiology , Tooth Diseases/classification , Tooth Erosion/therapy , Treatment OutcomeABSTRACT
The recently developed resin-modified glass ionomer cements and the polyacid-modified composites are promising alternatives to conventional materials for restoring cervical defects. This clinical study evaluated the clinical condition of cervical fillings 24 months following placement. The study subjects were 197 cervical restorations placed on incisors, canines and premolars in 37 patients for restoration of erosion/non-carious lesions (69 cases), primary carious lesions (57 cases) and the replacement of deficient restorations (71 cases). The teeth were randomly divided into four groups for restoration with either Tetric (composite, Group A: n = 36), Dyract (compomer, Group B: n = 79), Fuji II LC (resin-modified glass ionomer cement, Group C: n = 51) or Photac-Fil (resin-modified glass ionomer cement, Group D: n = 31). The evaluation was done single-blind at baseline, 8 and 24 months after the placement of the fillings, according to a modified USPHS rating scale. The assessment criteria were color stability, anatomical form, surface texture, marginal integrity, marginal discoloration and loss of filling. Statistical analysis was completed using Pearson chi-square and Fisher's exact test at a significance level of 5% (p < 0.05). After the 24-month period, the composite restorations showed superior results. The compomer fillings demonstrated conditions that were only slightly worse. A substantial number of the resin-modified glass-ionomer fillings were evaluated with bravo or even charlie scores in respect to at least one of the criteria assessed.
Subject(s)
Dental Materials/chemistry , Dental Restoration, Permanent/methods , Tooth Cervix/pathology , Tooth Diseases/therapy , Adult , Aged , Chi-Square Distribution , Color , Compomers/chemistry , Composite Resins/chemistry , Dental Caries/therapy , Dental Marginal Adaptation , Dental Restoration Failure , Follow-Up Studies , Glass Ionomer Cements/chemistry , Humans , Methacrylates/chemistry , Middle Aged , Resin Cements/chemistry , Resins, Synthetic/chemistry , Silicates/chemistry , Single-Blind Method , Statistics as Topic , Surface Properties , Tooth Erosion/therapyABSTRACT
This study was performed in vivo over a 6-month period to assess restorative margins in Class V restorations placed with different techniques. The margins were evaluated quantitatively under the scanning electron microscope using the replica technique. Results indicated that the sandwich technique using a glass-ionomer cement base and a composite resin restoration was not able to prevent marginal gaps in dentin. However, the experimental Gluma/Clearfil system resulted in a quality of dentinal margins not statistically significantly different from that of enamel margins. These in vivo findings substantiate in vitro results.
