Retention of a resin-modified glass ionomer adhesive in non-carious cervical lesions. A 6-year follow-up

Effect of dentin roughening and type of composite material on the restoration of non-carious cervical lesions: an in vivo study with 18 months of follow-up

“…Interestingly, even the significantly greater number of cases of sclerotic dentin (grade 3) in group I did not appear to influence the results. These findings are consistent with the studies conducted by van Dijken [ 7 8 ], which indicated no significant effect of dentin roughening. This lack of effect could be attributed to the fact that dentin roughening removes only the superficial layers of hyper-mineralized dentin, leaving the deeper layers untouched.…”

Effect of dentin roughening and type of composite material on the restoration of non-carious cervical lesions: an in vivo study with 18 months of follow-up

“…Interestingly, even the significantly greater number of cases of sclerotic dentin (grade 3) in group I did not appear to influence the results. These findings are consistent with the studies conducted by van Dijken [ 7 8 ], which indicated no significant effect of dentin roughening. This lack of effect could be attributed to the fact that dentin roughening removes only the superficial layers of hyper-mineralized dentin, leaving the deeper layers untouched.…”

Remineralization of Natural Human Carious Dentin Lesions with an Experimental Whisker‐Reinforced Atraumatic Restorative Treatment Composite

“…The sustained release of F ions from RM‐GIC leads to more than 1‐year remineralization of naturally occurring carious dentin . This is in agreement with laboratory and clinical results of the ability of RMGIs to release fluoride for more than 8 weeks and to increase the fluoride content in dental hard tissue adjacent to restorations …”

Seven-Year Clinical Performance of Resin Composite Versus Resin-Modified Glass Ionomer Restorations in Noncarious Cervical Lesions

“…The combination of these restorative materials is a good alternative and seems to minimize restoration loss. 12,37,42 The overall better behavior of ionomer restorations is in accordance with previous papers on shortterm 4,15,[43][44] or long-term evaluations. 40,45 Few clinical trials suggested a limited longevity for RMGI restorations compared with resin composite restorative materials.…”

“…The number of restorations that failed with respect to retention is also cited in Table 5. The ages of the patients whose restorations failed for retention were 30, 35, and 50 for resin-modified glass ionomer restorations; and they were 18,27,32,35,36,37,40,45, and 50 years for resin composite restorations.…”

Effect of dentin roughening and type of composite material on the restoration of non-carious cervical lesions: an in vivo study with 18 months of follow-up

“…Interestingly, even the significantly greater number of cases of sclerotic dentin (grade 3) in group I did not appear to influence the results. These findings are consistent with the studies conducted by van Dijken [ 7 8 ], which indicated no significant effect of dentin roughening. This lack of effect could be attributed to the fact that dentin roughening removes only the superficial layers of hyper-mineralized dentin, leaving the deeper layers untouched.…”

Remineralization of Natural Human Carious Dentin Lesions with an Experimental Whisker‐Reinforced Atraumatic Restorative Treatment Composite

“…The sustained release of F ions from RM‐GIC leads to more than 1‐year remineralization of naturally occurring carious dentin . This is in agreement with laboratory and clinical results of the ability of RMGIs to release fluoride for more than 8 weeks and to increase the fluoride content in dental hard tissue adjacent to restorations …”

Seven-Year Clinical Performance of Resin Composite Versus Resin-Modified Glass Ionomer Restorations in Noncarious Cervical Lesions

“…The combination of these restorative materials is a good alternative and seems to minimize restoration loss. 12,37,42 The overall better behavior of ionomer restorations is in accordance with previous papers on shortterm 4,15,[43][44] or long-term evaluations. 40,45 Few clinical trials suggested a limited longevity for RMGI restorations compared with resin composite restorative materials.…”

“…The number of restorations that failed with respect to retention is also cited in Table 5. The ages of the patients whose restorations failed for retention were 30, 35, and 50 for resin-modified glass ionomer restorations; and they were 18,27,32,35,36,37,40,45, and 50 years for resin composite restorations.…”

Effect of dentin roughening and type of composite material on the restoration of non-carious cervical lesions: an in vivo study with 18 months of follow-up

“…Interestingly, even the significantly greater number of cases of sclerotic dentin (grade 3) in group I did not appear to influence the results. These findings are consistent with the studies conducted by van Dijken [ 7 8 ], which indicated no significant effect of dentin roughening. This lack of effect could be attributed to the fact that dentin roughening removes only the superficial layers of hyper-mineralized dentin, leaving the deeper layers untouched.…”

Remineralization of Natural Human Carious Dentin Lesions with an Experimental Whisker‐Reinforced Atraumatic Restorative Treatment Composite

“…The sustained release of F ions from RM‐GIC leads to more than 1‐year remineralization of naturally occurring carious dentin . This is in agreement with laboratory and clinical results of the ability of RMGIs to release fluoride for more than 8 weeks and to increase the fluoride content in dental hard tissue adjacent to restorations …”

Seven-Year Clinical Performance of Resin Composite Versus Resin-Modified Glass Ionomer Restorations in Noncarious Cervical Lesions

“…The combination of these restorative materials is a good alternative and seems to minimize restoration loss. 12,37,42 The overall better behavior of ionomer restorations is in accordance with previous papers on shortterm 4,15,[43][44] or long-term evaluations. 40,45 Few clinical trials suggested a limited longevity for RMGI restorations compared with resin composite restorative materials.…”

“…The number of restorations that failed with respect to retention is also cited in Table 5. The ages of the patients whose restorations failed for retention were 30, 35, and 50 for resin-modified glass ionomer restorations; and they were 18,27,32,35,36,37,40,45, and 50 years for resin composite restorations.…”