A retrospective, practice-based, clinical evaluation of Fuji IX restorations aged over five years placed in load-bearing cavities.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate reinforced glass-ionomer restorations which had been placed in a general dental practice more than five years previously. METHOD: Patients who were identified as having received reinforced one or more reinforced glass-ionomer restorations were invited to attend for an examination of their restorations using scientific evaluation criteria, by one independent examiner and the dentist who owned the practice. RESULTS: Forty-two restorations were assessed, their mean age being 7 years and 9 months, in patients of mean age 57 years: 86% achieved an A rating for anatomic form, 69% A for marginal integrity, 81% A for surface roughness and 2% A for colour match. CONCLUSIONS: The restorations which were assessed were found to be performing satisfactorily at periods of over five years. However, the proportion of the total number of reinforced glass-ionomer restorations placed in the participating dental practice which this represents is not known.

Clinical performance of reinforced glass ionomer restorations placed in UK dental practices.

AIM: To retrospectively evaluate the performance of reinforced glass ionomer restorations placed in load-bearing surfaces of posterior teeth in three UK general dental practices. METHODS: Inclusion criteria for the participating practitioners were that they would be able to find, in their regularly attending patients' mouths, a minimum of 30 Fuji IX restorations placed in load-bearing cavities in posterior teeth. The three practitioners who agreed to participate were given training in the methods of assessment of restorations. Presence/absence of the restoration, presence of secondary caries, anatomic form, margin adaptation, margin discolouration, surface roughness and colour match were recorded. RESULTS: Three general dental practitioners and 169 restorations in 116 patients were included in the study. Seventy-eight percent of restorations were placed in molar teeth, the remainder in premolar teeth, with 67 being Class I and 102 Class II. The mean age of restorations at examination was 25 months, ranging from five months to 56 months. Of the restorations examined, 98% (n = 166) were found to be present and intact. No secondary caries was detected clinically. Three restorations were found to have fractured. CONCLUSION: Reinforced glass ionomer restorations placed in load-bearing situations in patients attending three dental practices in the UK were found to be performing satisfactorily at two years. Further investigations, of improved rigour, may now be indicated to more fully assess the performance of such restorations in the long term.