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

Welbury, Richard; Shaw, A. J.; Murray, John; Gordon, P. H.; McCabe, J.F.

doi:10.1038/sj.bdj.4800693

Cited by 51 publications

(18 citation statements)

References 11 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In the present study, the same RMGIC-P showed the highest failure rate and the shortest longevity of the restorations, while the results of another RMGIC, RMGIC-V, and the compomer were at the same or even higher level as that for class II amalgam restorations in the first part of the project (11). The superior findings for RMGIC-V and the compomer are supported by other studies (21)(22)(23)(24)(25)(26)(27)(28). Thus, it can be concluded that the increased tensile and flexural strength of the newly developed RMGIC and compomer materials have reduced the clinical shortcomings of earlier GIC and RMGIC materials.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 83%

Class II restorations in primary teeth: 7‐year study on three resin‐modified glass ionomer cements and a compomer

Qvist

Laurberg²,

Poulsen³

et al. 2004

European J Oral Sciences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The aim of this randomized study was to compare the longevity and cariostatic effects of 1565 class II restorations in primary teeth placed by 15 clinicians in the Danish Public Dental Health Service in 971 children, aged 3.6-14.9 yr. The restorations were performed using three resin-modified glass ionomer cements and one compomer (polyacid-modified composite resin) with and without their respective cavity conditioners. The restorations were in contact with 1023 unrestored proximal surfaces in 853 primary and 170 permanent teeth. The study was terminated after 7 yr with 1% of the restorations in function, 7% patient dropouts, 18% failed restorations, and operative treatment on 24% of the adjacent surfaces. Multivariate survival analyses showed that the restorative material and cavity conditioning influenced the survival of restorations but not the progression of caries on adjacent surfaces. The 50% survival times were estimated to exceed 5 yr for the restorations and 4.5 yr for the adjacent unfilled surfaces in all treatment groups. It was concluded that resin-modified glass ionomer cement and compomer are both appropriate materials for class II restorations in primary teeth. The differences in longevity and cariostatic effects among the four materials used with and without conditioner were less than the intra-individual differences between clinicians.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 83%

Class II restorations in primary teeth: 7‐year study on three resin‐modified glass ionomer cements and a compomer

Qvist

Laurberg²,

Poulsen³

et al. 2004

European J Oral Sciences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…[123456] At the same time, there is evidence to support that conventional glass ionomer cement is inappropriate for use in primary molars due to its low physical properties and poor long-term performance. [789] These findings contradict the choice of materials made by clinicians worldwide.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 98%

Comparative evaluation of microleakage of three restorative glass ionomer cements: An in vitro study

Diwanji¹,

Dhar²,

Arora³

et al. 2014

J Nat Sc Biol Med

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose:The aim of this study was to compare the microleakage of glass ionomers (conventional and resin modified) with that of recently introduced nanoionomers.Materials and Methods:Standardized class I and class V cavities were prepared on 120 young permanent teeth. Samples were equally divided into group I (class I restorations) and group II (class V restorations), and further divided into subgroups. The subgroups were restored with Fuji IX, Fuji II LC, and newly introduced Ketac™ N 100 (KN 100). Samples were thermocycled and submerged in Acridine dye for 24 h. Samples were sectioned to view under fluorescent microscope and marginal leakage was evaluated by Chi-square and Kruskal — Wallis test.Results:Fuji IX showed the maximum leakage, followed by LC II and the least was observed in KN 100. In class I restorations, there was significant difference while comparing Fuji IX with Fuji LC II and KN 100 and nonsignificant difference between LC II and KN100. In class V restorations, Fuji IX and KN100, KN 100 and LC II showed significant difference. Fuji IX and LC II showed nonsignificant difference.Conclusion:Within the limitations of this study, Fuji IX showed the maximum microleakage. KN 100 showed minimum leakage, better sealing ability, and was more consistent.

show abstract

“…It is suitable for class I and II restorations in primary teeth and is light cured [13]. Compomers have been shown to have comparable longevity to amalgam in primary teeth and are superior to conventional glass ionomer materials [14,15]. In addition to the benefits afforded by an adhesive material in terms of minimal cavity preparation and fluoride release on setting, the bright colour made it easier to place where visual access was limited.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Freeman–Sheldon syndrome: a case report

Corrigan

Duncan

Gregg

2006

Int J Paed Dentistry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

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

Cited by 51 publications

References 11 publications

Class II restorations in primary teeth: 7‐year study on three resin‐modified glass ionomer cements and a compomer

Class II restorations in primary teeth: 7‐year study on three resin‐modified glass ionomer cements and a compomer

Comparative evaluation of microleakage of three restorative glass ionomer cements: An in vitro study

Freeman–Sheldon syndrome: a case report

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About