Home Subscription Services
 
   

 
The Journal of Adhesive Dentistry
JAD Home Page
About the Editor
Editorial Board
Submit
Author Guidelines
Submission Form
Reprints / Articles
Permissions
Advertising
Advertising
MEDLINE Search
 
 
 
 
 
FacebookTwitter
Quintessence Publishing: Journals: JAD

 

The Journal of Adhesive Dentistry

Edited by Jean-François Roulet

ISSN (print) 1461-5185 • ISSN (online) 1757-9988

Publication:

Winter 2003
Volume 5 , Issue 4



Pages: 323-332
Back
Share Abstract:

Five-year Double-blind Randomized Clinical Evaluation of a Resin-modified Glass Ionomer and a Polyacid-modified Resin in Noncarious Cervical Lesions

Loguercio, A.D./Reis, A./Barbosa, A.N./Roulet, J.F.

The aim of this double-blind randomized study was to compare the clinical performance of a resin-modified glass ionomer (Vitremer, 3M) and a polyacid-modified resin (Dyract, Dentsply DeTrey) in noncarious Class V restorations after 5 years. Twelve patients, having at least one pair of equal-sized noncarious cervical lesions under occlusion and a mean age of 40 years (range 19 to 63 years; median 41), were enrolled in this study. A total of 32 restorations (16 with each material) were placed according to the manufacturers’ instructions by two calibrated operators. Two other independent examiners evaluated the restorations at baseline and after 5 years according to the USPHS criteria. The assessment criteria were: retention, anatomical form, marginal adaptation and marginal discoloration, color match, surface texture, and secondary caries. Statistical analysis was conducted using Fisher’s exact test (α = 0.05). No secondary caries was detected with either material. The retention rate for Vitremer (93%) and for Dyract (78.5%) did not differ significantly (p > 0.05). Regarding anatomical form, only two restorations of each material were recorded as bravo. In terms of marginal adaptation, 38.5% of Dyract restorations were rated alpha and 61.5% bravo, while 84.6% of Vitremer restorations were rated alpha and only 15.4% bravo (p < 0.05). For marginal discoloration, 18.2% of Dyract restorations and 84.6% of Vitremer restorations were rated alpha, with the remaining rated bravo. 86% of Vitremer restorations were rated as bravo and 23% alpha for both surface texture and color match. All Dyract restorations were classified as alpha regarding surface texture, and only two Dyract restorations (18.2%) were classified as bravo in the color match item. The marginal adaptation of the RMGIC (Vitremer) was significantly better, the marginal discoloration lower, and the retention rate higher (though not significantly) than that of the PMRC (Dyract) after 5 years in situ. Dyract performed better in terms of surface texture and color match in noncarious Class V restorations after 5 years.

Full Text PDF File | Order Article

 

 
  © 2014 Quintessence Publishing Co Inc
 

Home | Subscription Services | Books | Journals | Multimedia | Events | Blog
Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | About Us | Contact Us | Advertising | Help | Sitemap | Catalog