We are using cookies to implement functions like login, shopping cart or language selection for this website. Furthermore we use Google Analytics to create anonymized statistical reports of the usage which creates Cookies too. You will find more information in our privacy policy.
OK, I agree I do not want Google Analytics-Cookies
Quintessence International
Login:
username:

password:

Plattform:

Forgotten password?

Registration

Quintessence Int 46 (2015), No. 5     27. Mar. 2015
Quintessence Int 46 (2015), No. 5  (27.03.2015)

Page 381-388, doi:10.3290/j.qi.a33517, PubMed:25642461


Two-year clinical performance in primary teeth of nano-filled versus conventional resin-modified glass-ionomer restorations
Abo-Hamar, Sahar E. / El-Desouky, Shaimaa S. / Abu Hamila, Nahed A.
Objective: The hypothesis to be tested was that the clinical performance of nano-filled resin-modified glass ionomers (RMGIs) in Class I primary molars will differ from that of its preceding conventional RMGI.
Method and Materials: The shear bond strengths of each material to primary molar dentin were measured (n = 10) using a notched-edge crosshead. Independent sample t test was used for statistical analysis. A split-mouth designed clinical trial was performed in which nano-filled RMGI (Ketac Nano; KN) and conventional RMGI (Vitremer; VR) were used to restore Class I cavities of primary molars. Each material group (n = 30) was evaluated according to United States Public Health Service (USPHS), regarding marginal discoloration, marginal adaptation, color match, anatomic form, and recurrent caries, at baseline, after 1 year, and after 2 years. Wilcoxon signed-rank test and chi-square test were used for statistical analysis.
Results: Shear bond strength (mean ± SD) of KN (6.3 ± 3.9 MPa) was significantly lower (P < .05) than that of VR (9.5 ± 2.7 MPa). After 2 years, KN restorations showed significantly increased wear (92% Alpha and 8% Charlie) and marginal discoloration (23% Bravo and 8% Charlie) with secondary caries (8%). Color match was significantly decreased for both KN and VR (69% and 73% Bravo, respectively). When parameters were compared for materials at each recall, there was no statistically significant difference between KN and VR.
Conclusion: Nano-filled RMGI may not be better than conventional RMGI; its wear resistance deteriorates with time, and it has low bond strength to dentin.

Keywords: bond strength, Class I, clinical trial, nano-filled resin-modified glass ionomer, primary teeth