These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: One-year clinical evaluation of two resin composites, two polymerization methods, and a resin-modified glass ionomer in non-carious cervical lesions.
    Author: Koubi S, Raskin A, Bukiet F, Pignoly C, Toca E, Tassery H.
    Journal: J Contemp Dent Pract; 2006 Nov 01; 7(5):42-53. PubMed ID: 17091139.
    Abstract:
    AIM: The aim of this study was to examine clinically relevant data on four restorative procedures for non-carious cervical lesions using United States Public Health Service (USPHS)-compatible clinical and photographic criteria and to compare different methods of analyzing clinical data. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Fourteen patients with at least one or two pairs of non-carious lesions under occlusion and a mean age of 50 were enrolled in this study. A total of 56 restorations (14 with each material) were placed by three experienced, calibrated dental practitioners. Two other experienced and calibrated practitioners, under single-blind conditions, followed up on all restorations for a period of one year. Three materials were randomly placed: a micro-hybrid composite with two polymerization methods (G1 and G2), a flowable micro-hydrid composite (G3), and a resin-modified glass ionomer (G4). Statistical analysis was performed using the Kruskall-Wallis test (p<0.05) and a Mann-Whitney U modified test with a corrected significance level. RESULTS: At the one year evaluation time, there were no restorations with secondary caries and the retention rates in G1 (IntenS with a hard polymerization), G2 (IntenS with a soft polymerization), G3 (Filtek flow), and G4 (Fuji II LC) were 85.7% (two losses), 92.8% (one loss), 100%, and 100%, respectively. The total visual comparison of the results at baseline (15 days later) showed significant differences only with the clinical acceptance criterion: G1 was different from G2, with a soft polymerization device (p<0.05). In terms of surface quality at one year, G1, G2, and G3 exhibited a statistically significant difference from G4, p<0.05. The digital analysis at baseline showed significant differences only with the clinical acceptance criterion: G1=G2 was different from G3=G4, p<0.05. At one year, only the microporosity criterion showed any statistical differences: G1=G2=G3 was different from G4, p<0.05. CONCLUSIONS: The resin-modified glass ionomer was easier to use and had a high retention rate, but it failed in terms of surface quality (visual mode) and porosity (digital mode) criteria compared to the others groups. Overall results showed no difference between groups G1 (hard-polymerized) and G2 (soft-polymerized), and only G1 was affected by the marginal edge (p<0.03) and integrity criteria (p<0.02) at one year.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]