Open AccessOne year clinical follow up of nano filled glass ionomer and composite resin restorations
Author(s) -
Ashraf M Nassar,
Ali Abdalla,
Magda E Shalaby
Publication year - 2014
Publication title -
tanta dental journal
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
eISSN - 2536-9644
pISSN - 1687-8574
DOI - 10.1016/j.tdj.2014.02.002
Subject(s) - glass ionomer cement , dentistry , materials science , adhesive , significant difference , orthodontics , medicine , composite material , layer (electronics)
BackgroundThe authors evaluated the clinical performance of a nano filled glass ionomer restorative material (Ketac N100) and a nano filled composite resin restorations (Grandio SO) with its adhesive (Futurabond DC) in Class V carious lesions over one year.MethodsThirty patients received sixty different restorations. The distributions of materials and the teeth locations were randomized. Class V cavity was prepared according to caries extension. For cavities to be restored with composite a 1 mm bevel was placed on the enamel margin to increase the surface area for bonding. adhesives were used following the manufacturer's instructions. Grandio SO with its adhesive and Ketac N100 restorative materials were applied following manufacturer's instructions. Finishing and polishing was performed using finishing burs and polishing discs. Each restoration was clinically evaluated at base line (24 h), 6 months and after one year using USPHS criteria.ResultsThe recall rate was (81.7%) after 1 year. Survival rate for Grandio SO restorations were (85.185%) while for Ketac N100, it was (100%) after one year of clinical service. Using Friedman test, a significant difference was recorded between the tested materials when the effect of time was tested on restoration fracture, color match, anatomic form, marginal adaptation and recurrence of caries. Using Fischer's exact test, a significant difference was recorded between tested groups regarding restoration fracture, color match. Anatomic form, recurrence of caries, marginal discoloration and postoperative hypersensitivity.ConclusionMost of the restorations maintained good quality during the observation period, which was considered a short evaluation time.Clinical implicationsGrandio SO and Ketac N100 achieved clinically acceptable results after one year of service. So both materials may be used with confidence in Class V carious lesions. A longer evaluation period may be recommended to decide the use of restorative material safely in Class V cavities