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

Stewardson, Dominic; Creanor, Siobhan; Thornley, P.; Bigg, Tom; Bromage, C.; Browne, Anthony; Cottam, Daniel; Dalby, D.; Gilmour, Jill; Horton, J. N.; Roberts, E.; Westoby, L.; Burke, Trevor

doi:10.1038/sj.bdj.2012.367

Cited by 38 publications

(22 citation statements)

References 34 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…21 In current study, both GIC treatments decreased pain symptoms. In fact, the material binds with enamel and dentin via ionic and polar bonds, and close molecular contact facilitates the exchange of fluoride ions with hydroxyl ions at the surrounding dental apatite.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 95%

Evaluation of dentin hypersensitivity treatment with glass ionomer cements: A randomized clinical trial

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A randomized, double-blind, split-mouth clinical trial was performed compared the desensitizing efficacy of the resin-modified glass ionomer cement (GIC) ClinproTM XT (3M ESPE, Minnesota, USA) and the conventional GIC Vidrion R (SS White, Gloucester, UK) in a 6-month follow-up. Subjects were required to have at least two teeth with dentin hypersensitivity. Teeth were divided at random into 2 groups, one group received Clinpro XT and the other conventional GIC Vidrion R. Treatments were assessed by tactile and air blast tests using Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) at baseline, after 20 minutes, and at 7, 15, 21, 30, 90 and 180 days post-treatment. Twenty subjects (152 teeth) were included. Both tests (tactile and air blast) showed a significant reduction of dentin hypersensitivity immediately after the application of Vidrion R and Clinpro XT (20 min). VAS scores obtained along the 6-month follow-up were statistically lower when compared to initial rates (p < 0.05). Both GIC were able to reduce dentin hypersensitivity up to 6-month post-treatment period without statistically significant differences among them (p > 0.05). Both cements provided satisfactory results in long-term dental sensitivity reduction.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 95%

Evaluation of dentin hypersensitivity treatment with glass ionomer cements: A randomized clinical trial

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Greater durability of these restorations could be achieved by improving operator skills, followed by cavity preparation and appropriate material handling. 48 Additionally, Brackett and others 49 observed reduced percentages of clinical success of noncarious class V lesions restored by inexperienced operators due to limitations in the manufacturer's instructions of selfetching adhesives. In the present study, the restorations were performed by only one operator, in order to decrease the effect of the operator factor.…”

Section: Noncarious Class V Clinical Trials Remain the Ultimate Testimentioning

confidence: 97%

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

Fagundes

Barata

Bresciani

et al. 2014

Operative Dentistry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Root caries has become a significant dental problem in older adult population due to increase in age and retention of teeth with exposed root surfaces [1,2]. Several studies have demonstrated high failure rates of approximately 27.8% in 5 years and 36-87% in 13 years for class V restorations using currently available dental materials [3][4][5]. Systematic reviews indicated significant influence of the type of material and the adhesive system on the survival of restorations of non-carious cervical lesions [6,7].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Other reported prognostic factors include individual clinician, size of the cavity, cavity preparation technique, moisture contamination, patient age, presence or absence of enamel and caries. Predominant modes of failure for class V restorations includes loss of retention (83%) need for crowning (5%), facture (4%), partial loss of restoration (4%) and secondary caries (3%) [3].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Biomodification of a Class-V Restorative Material by Incorporation of Bioactive Agents

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Restoring subgingival class-V cavities successfully, demand special biological properties from a restorative material. This study aimed to assess the effects of incorporating bioactive materials to glass ionomer cement (GIC) on its mechanical and biological properties. Hydroxyapatite, chitosan, chondroitin sulphate, bioglass, gelatine and processed bovine dentin were incorporated into a GIC restorative material. Compressive strength, biaxial flexural strength (BFS), hardness, setting and working time measurements were investigated. Biocompatibility of the new materials was assessed using both monolayer cell cultures of normal oral fibroblasts (NOF) and TR146 keratinocytes, and a 3D-tissue engineered human oral mucosa model (3D-OMM) using presto-blue tissue viability assay and histological examination. Significant reduction in the compressive strength and BFS of gelatine-modified discs was observed, while chondroitin sulphate-modified discs had reduced BFS only (p value > 0.05). For hardness, working and setting times, only bioglass caused significant increase in the working time. NOF viability was significantly increased when exposed to GIC-modified with bovine dentine, bioglass and chitosan. Histological examination showed curling and growth of the epithelial layer toward the disc space, except for the GIC modified with gelatine. This study has highlighted the potential for clinical application of the modified GICs with hydroxyapatite, chitosan, bioglass and bovine dentine in subgingival class-V restorations.

show abstract

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

Cited by 38 publications

References 34 publications

Evaluation of dentin hypersensitivity treatment with glass ionomer cements: A randomized clinical trial

Evaluation of dentin hypersensitivity treatment with glass ionomer cements: A randomized clinical trial

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

Biomodification of a Class-V Restorative Material by Incorporation of Bioactive Agents

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About