Clinical evaluation of a new art material: Nanoparticulated resin-modified glass ionomer cement

Abstract

Context:The success of atraumatic restorative treatment (ART) technique depends on the restorative material; hence, clinical studies with various materials are necessary.Aim:The aim of the present study was to clinically evaluate and compare the nanoionomer and high-viscosity glass ionomer using United States Public Health Services (USPHS) Modified Cvar/Ryge Criteria with ART approach.Materials and Methods:Two primary molars in 50 healthy children aged between 5 and 8 years were selected for the study. The teeth were treated with ART and divided into two groups. The group 1 teeth were restored with nanoionomer (Ketac Nano 100 3M ESPE) and group 2 with high-viscosity glass ionomer cement (HVGIC), (Fuji IX GC). Each restoration was evaluated using the USPHS Modified Cvar/Ryge Criteria at baseline and 6 months’ and 12 months’ time interval.Statistical analysis used:Chi-squared (χ2) test.Results:Nanoionomer was significantly better than HVGIC with respect to color match at baseline, 6 months, and 12 months (P<0.001). Nanoionomers were also significantly better than HVGIC in case of cavosurface marginal discoloration and marginal adaptation (P<0.001) at 6 months and 12 months. There was no significant difference between the two materials with respect to secondary caries at 6 months (P>0.05), but at 12 months, nanoionomer was statistically better than HVGIC (P<0.05). There was no statistical significant difference with respect to anatomical form and postoperative sensitivity (P>0.05).Conclusion:The results indicate that nanoionomer can be a successful alternative restorative material for use with ART technique.

Comparative efficacy of nanofilled and microfilled resin-modified glass ionomer as pits and fissure sealant in permanent molar teeth

“…Previous studies have reported the mismatching of color may be due to either difference of filler particles or it can occur due to body discoloration of the monomer. 23 It has been reported that the particle size of Ketac TM Nano 100 ranged from 5 to 25 nm or 0.1 nm, which is far below the wavelength of light, marking them immeasurable by the refractive index. When the light comes in, it passes directly through the materials, making it highly translucent.…”

“…Another study reported that the change of color may be due to body discoloration of monomer matrix. 23 This might be the possible reason of loss of color in Hy-bond Resiglass sealant.…”

Desempenho clínico do cimento de ionômero de vidro no tratamento restaurador atraumático: uma revisão da literatura

“…9,11, 23 These results point to the fact that those brands less recognised in the dental industry may be a viable option for making restorations in the ART, especially for use in the public health systems of developing countries. 11 In contrast, Konde et al 27 clinically compared two cement types: a high viscosity GIC (Fuji IX), and a resin modified GIC (Ketac Nano 100), noting that the latter achieved a significantly higher success rate (98%) than the first (88%) during the 12-month evaluation period. Another investigation showed that in Class I cavities, restorations of Amalgomer CR (97.4%) and Fuji IX (94.9%) were both successful.…”

“…This situation minimizes the risk of fracture or attrition and loss of the glass ionomer. 27 A clinical trial involving restorations in multiple surface cavities, with sizes around 2 and 3mm (restoration volume from 10 to 19.9mm) observed a higher survival rate, comparing with the more extensive restorations; the latter did not present good results in the ART. 20 The results of the present review show that, although there are many brands of GIC in dental industry, the survival rate of ART, whether in single or multiple surfaces, has little influence from this variable.…”

“…The main causes of failures identified by the studies selected in this review were partial or total loss of the restoration 15,16,23,24,31,36 and presence of a marginal defect. 10, 23,35 Secondary caries, 19,27 pulp inflammation 34 and restoration fracture 11,38 appear on a smaller scale.…”