An evaluation of an anhydrous glass-ionomer cement in general dental practice

Clinical evaluation of paired compomer and glass ionomer restorations in primary molars: final results after 42 months

“…Previous authors have postulated that some adhesive materials are capable of fulfilling this requirement. 3,13,17 In addition there are other potential advantages associated with the use of adhesive materials in children. They allow …”

The atraumatic restorative treatment (ART) approach to restoring primary teeth in a standard dental clinic

“…[33] found a higher success rate (63%) for Ketac‐Fil over three years, while Knibbs et al . [34] had reported a very high success rate, 98%, for Chem‐Fil restorations after a short period of only 6 months.…”

Glass ionomer cement: 10 years of clinical use

“…In clinical studies of the material used in a variety of situations there were no adverse reports from patients following the use of glass ionomer cement (Osborne et aL, 1985;Knibbs, 1986;Knibbs, Plant & Pearson, 1986a;Knibbs, Plant & Shovelton, 1986c;Knibbs & Plant, 1986), There were several reports of previous patient symptoms from sensitive cervical lesions being improved or completely alleviated by the use of a glass ionomer restorative (Mount & Makinson, 1978;Charbeneau & Bozell, 1979;Lawrence, 1979;Low, 1981;Brandau, Ziemiecki & Charbeneau, 1984), Low (1981) noted 90% total relief and 6% partial relief of such symptoms in his study of sensitive cervical lesions, and that placement of the material was often possible without a local anaesthetic. The only case where no improvement was noted was one where the restorations had been lost, Brandau et al (1984) noted that relief of cervical sensitivity lasted over a 4'/2-year period in their study, McLean & Wilson (1977b) noticed no evidence of pulp death in their clinical trial of glass ionomer to treat cervical abrasions.…”

“…One clinical evaluation of ASPA included an independent questionnaire survey of twenty-five private practitioners who noted poor clinical performance of the material (Smales, 1981a). Fifty general dental practitioners evaluated aspects of handling and clinical use of a glass ionomer cement (Knibbs et aL, 1986c). The study reported on 1350 restorations at the time of placement, and 803 restorations at review approximately 7 months later.…”

“…The latter workers showed that none of the presently recotnmended varnishes or emollients offered complete protection. The inadvertent contamination of restorations with moisture did not result in significant failure of restorations at short term review (Knibbs et al, 1986c). > Many of the clinical studies followed the manufacturers' recommended method of finishing the restorations.…”