5-Year Clinical Performance of Resin Composite versus Resin Modified Glass Ionomer Restorative System in Non-Carious Cervical Lesions

The survival of Class V restorations in general dental practice: part 3, five-year survival

“…23,26,27 However, only 68% of composite restorations survived to five years in this study compared to proportions of 100%, 24,28 96%, 27 92% 23 and 52% 27 reported by others. Studies comparing RMGI with composite 27 or compomer 25 report greater five-year survival for RMGI. The results of our study show the same trends although the relative proportions differ.…”

“…RMGI restorations performed well over five years in comparison with the other tooth-coloured materials, which concurs with the findings of other studies of similar duration. 25,27 Although the different materials used did show some differences in survival, with a greater proportion of GI restorations failing over the five-year period and a greater proportion of RMGI and amalgam restorations surviving, this difference was only significant for carious cavities. For cavities where caries was not the cause, the practitioner had a greater influence on survival than the choice of material.…”

“…When compared with other recent studies of similar duration, this study has compared a wider range of materials, included a greater number of restorations of each type [23][24][25][26][27][28] and had fewer restorations lost to follow-up than in three of these aforementioned studies. 23,26,27 However, only 68% of composite restorations survived to five years in this study compared to proportions of 100%, 24,28 96%, 27 92% 23 and 52% 27 reported by others.…”

Effect of Substrate Age and Adhesive Composition on Dentin Bonding

“…EB resulted in statistically similar mean lTBS compared to EBnoCP for all age groups: p = 0.538 for (,21); p = 0.974 for (21)(22)(23)(24)(25)(26)(27)(28)(29)(30)(31)(32)(33)(34)(35)(36)(37)(38)(39)(40); and p = 0.909 for (.40). SB resulted in statistically higher mean lTBS than SBnoCP for all age groups [p,0.009 for (,21); p,0.028 for (21)(22)(23)(24)(25)(26)(27)(28)(29)(30)(31)(32)(33)(34)(35)(36)(37)(38)(39)(40); and p,0.041 for (.40)]. MP, the control group, resulted in statistically lower mean lTBS when applied to the oldest age group (.40) compared to the youngest age group (,21), at p , 0.04.…”

“…Materials and Methods: Sixty extracted caries-free human teeth were assigned to the appropriate age group: less than 21 years of age (,21), 21-40 years of age (21)(22)(23)(24)(25)(26)(27)(28)(29)(30)(31)(32)(33)(34)(35)(36)(37)(38)(39)(40), and greater than 40 years of age (.40). For each age group, specimens were randomly divided into five dentin adhesives: (1) Adper Easy Bond (EB, 3M ESPE), a one-step self-etch adhesive; (2) Experimental Adper Easy Bond without the Vitrebond Co-polymer (CP) (EBnoCP, 3M ESPE); (3) Adper Single Bond Plus (SB, 3M ESPE), a two-step etch&rinse adhesive; (4) Experimental Adper Single Bond Plus without CP (SBnoCP, 3M ESPE); and (5) Adper Scotchbond Multi-Purpose (MP, 3M ESPE), a threestep etch&rinse adhesive, as the control group.…”