Premium
One‐year clinical evaluation of two high‐viscosity glass‐ionomer cements in class II restorations of primary molars
Author(s) -
Gok Baba Merve,
Kirzioglu Zuhal,
Ceyhan Derya
Publication year - 2021
Publication title -
australian dental journal
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.701
H-Index - 71
eISSN - 1834-7819
pISSN - 0045-0421
DOI - 10.1111/adj.12802
Subject(s) - glass ionomer cement , molar , dentistry , materials science , medicine , significant difference , orthodontics
Background Little information exists on the clinical performance of restorative materials on primary teeth of preschool children. This study aimed to evaluate clinical performance of compomer, glass‐hybrid‐added high‐viscosity glass‐ionomer cement and zinc‐added high‐viscosity glass‐ionomer cement materials in class ΙΙ restorations of primary molars. Methods The study included 251 teeth of 57 patients aged 4–7 years with proximal caries in primary molars. The teeth were divided into three groups, and each restorative material was randomly distributed. Dyract XP, Equia Forte and ChemFil Rock materials were placed after cavity preparation and clinically evaluated at 3, 6, 9 and 12 months using modified United States Public Health Service criteria. Statistical analyses were performed using chi‐square and z tests. Results At the end of 12 months, a total of three restorations in Dyract XP group, 22 in Equia Forte group and 11 in ChemFil Rock group failed in retention criteria. No statistically significant difference existed between retention, colour match and surface texture criteria of all groups at 3 and 6 months, but a statistically significant difference was found at 12 months ( P < 0.05). Conclusion For class ΙΙ restorations of primary molars, the success of compomer material was superior to high‐viscosity glass‐ionomer materials.