Clinical performance of a new glass ionomer based restoration system: A retrospective cohort study
Source abstract
Abstract
Objectives This retrospective clinical study evaluated the suitability of a glass ionomer system as a permanent restoration material in posterior cavities. Methods 26 Class I (1-surface (S1)) and 125 Class II (84 2-surface (S2), 41 3- and 4-surface (S3+)) restorations were placed in permanent molars (n=94) and premolars (n=57) in 43 patients in 6 dental practices. Restorations were evaluated at 4.5× magnification using modified USPHS criteria. Statistical analysis was performed using the Pearson's Chi-square-test (p ≤ 0.05). Results The median age of the restorations was 24 months. No failures were observed. The original volume of the restoration was retained in 88.5% of the S1, in 64.2% of the S2 and in 53.7% of the S3+ restorations. A distinct volume loss in S1 restorations was evident in 3.8%. A visible and perceptible roughness was shown in 11.5% of the S1, in 14.3% of the S2 and in 24.4% of the S3+ restorations. Marginal disintegrities occurred in none of the S1, in 1.2% of the S2 and in 7.3% of the S3+ restorations. A distinct marginal discoloration was found less than 1%. Conclusions Within the limitations of this study it can be concluded that EQUIA can be used as a permanent restoration material for any sized Class I and in smaller Class II cavities. However, results of ongoing prospective studies shall provide a more exact indication definition in Class II situations. Significance Modern glass ionomer systems may not only serve as long-term temporaries, but also as permanent restorations in posterior teeth.
Source: europepmc · Quality: candidate unverified · Source record ↗
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Dental materials and restorations · Endodontics and Root Canal Treatments · Dental Health and Care Utilization
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
References (36)
Show source-provided references
1. Glass-ionomer restoratives: a systematic review of a secondary caries treatment effect10.1177/00220345990780020101 ↗
2. Review on fluoride-releasing restorative materials – fluoride release and uptake characteristics, antibacterial activity and influence on caries formation10.1016/j.dental.2006.01.022 ↗
3. Longevity of restorations in posterior teeth and reasons for failure
4. Clinical results and new developments of direct posterior restorations
5. Buonocore memorial lecture review of the clinical survival of direct and indirect restorations in posterior teeth of the permanent dentition
6. Direct posterior restorations: clinical results and new developments10.1016/S0011-8532(01)00010-6 ↗
7. New trends in glass-ionomer chemistry10.1016/S0142-9612(97)00127-0 ↗
8. Survival of ART and amalgam restorations in permanent teeth of children after 6.3 years10.1177/154405910608500708 ↗
9. Clinical performance of reinforced glass ionomer restorations placed in UK dental practices10.1038/bdj.2007.529 ↗
10. Clinical failure of class-II restorations of a highly viscous glass-ionomer material over a 6-year period: a retrospective study10.1016/j.jdent.2006.07.006 ↗
11. Kato K, Yarimizu H, Nakaseko H, Sakuma T. Influence of coating materials on conventional glass-ionomer cement. http://iadr.confex.com/iadr/search.epl; 2008.
12. Turkun LS, Kanik O. Clinical evaluation of new glass ionomer-coating combinated systems. http://iadr.confex.com/iadr/search.epl; 2010.
13. Two-year clinical evaluation of direct and indirect composite restorations in posterior teeth10.1016/S0022-3913(99)70025-9 ↗
14. Clinical performance and wear resistance of two compomers in posterior occlusal restorations of permanent teeth: six-year follow-up10.2341/06-71 ↗
15. Retrospective study of five-year clinical performance of direct composite restorations using a self-etching primer adhesive system10.4012/dmj.25.611 ↗
16. Retrospective study of the 10-year clinical performance of direct resin composite restorations placed with the acid-etch technique
17. Hickel · J Adhes Dent · 2007 · 9 · 121
18. Recommendations for conducting controlled clinical studies of dental res torative materials10.1007/s00784-006-0095-7 ↗
19. Mechanical properties of glass ionomer cements affected by curing methods10.1016/S0109-5641(03)00067-8 ↗
20. The physical–mechanical performance of the new Ketac Molar Easymix compared to commercially available glass ionomer restoratives10.1016/j.jdent.2004.12.009 ↗
21. An application of nanotechnology in advanced dental materials10.14219/jada.archive.2003.0054 ↗
22. An in vitro investigation of a poly(vinyl phosphonic acid) based cement with four conventional glass-ionomer cements. Part 1: flexural strength and fluoride release10.1016/S0300-5712(98)00061-X ↗
23. Is encapsulation of posterior glass-ionomer restoratives the solution to clinically induced variability introduced on mixing?10.1016/j.dental.2007.11.016 ↗
24. Environmental degradation of glass-ionomer cements: a depth-sensing microindentation study10.1002/jbm.b.30697 ↗
25. Surface hardness and wear of glass ionomers and compomers
26. Surface hardness change of restorative filling materials stored in saliva10.1016/S0109-5641(00)00053-1 ↗
27. study of the effects of artificial saliva on the physical characteristics of the glass ionomer cements used for art10.1016/j.dental.2004.09.009 ↗
28. Comparative hardness and modulus of tooth-colored restoratives: a depth-sensing microindentation study10.1016/j.biomaterials.2003.09.003 ↗
29. Effects of dietary acids on surface microhardness of various tooth-colored restoratives10.4012/dmj.23.429 ↗
30. Early and long-term wear of ‘fast-set’ conventional glass-ionomer cements10.1016/j.dental.2004.09.007 ↗
31. Comparative wear resistance of reinforced glass ionomer restorative materials
32. An overview of reasons for the placement and replacement of restorations10.1308/135576101771799335 ↗
33. Survival analysis of amalgam restorations in long-term recall patients10.3109/00016359009005863 ↗
34. Placement and replacement of amalgam restorations in Italy
35. Clinical evaluation of posterior composite restorations: the 10-year report
36. Clinical performance of posterior compomer restorations over 4 years