Premium
A clinical evaluation of the restoration of root surface caries
Author(s) -
Levy Steven M.,
Jensen Mark E.
Publication year - 1990
Publication title -
special care in dentistry
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.328
H-Index - 41
eISSN - 1754-4505
pISSN - 0275-1879
DOI - 10.1111/j.1754-4505.1990.tb00784.x
Subject(s) - glass ionomer cement , dentistry , medicine , root caries , enamel paint , seal (emblem) , orthodontics , art , visual arts
Root surface caries is of growing importance because its prevalence increases with age, and the population of the United States is growing older while edentulism and tooth loss rates have declined. Few clinical studies have evaluated materials used for the restoration of active root caries lesions. This study evaluated a Type II glass ionomer cement and a microfilled composite resin, both placed in preparations without mechanical retention or acid etching of enamel, in the restoration of root caries. Fifty adult volunteers with active root caries received one or both materials with the material chosen randomly. Patients were recalled after 24 months to evaluate restorations for retention, additional caries, marginal integrity, and overall clinical acceptability. Seventy‐seven restorations were available for re‐evaluation. Forty‐five percent of the glass ionomer and 73% of the composite restorations were clinically acceptable after 24 months. Of the glass ionomers, 39% were fully retained compared with 73% of composite restorations. Among those partially or fully retained, 25% of the glass ionomer restorations had minimal loss of marginal integrity and 30% had extensive loss while 53% and 9% of composite restorations had minimal and extensive loss, respectively. Most restorations were clinically unacceptable because of restorative material loss. Substantial numbers of glass ionomer cement and composite resin restorations were lost. This may be the result of difficulties in maintaining isolation and obtaining a proper gingival seal. Thus, routine use of mechanical retention is still highly recommended to reduce the loss of restorative material.