Fig 5 - uploaded by Asbjørn Jokstad
Content may be subject to copyright.
Number of glass ionomer cermet restorations in upper (U) and lower (l) premolars (P) and molars (M). The dark part of the column shows the restorations failed due to bulk fracture after 3 years.
Source publication
The aim of this study was to compare the clinical performance of an amalgam, a glass polyalkenoate (ionomer) cerment material and a resin-based composite material used in small Class II cavities in permanent teeth. All restorations were inserted under rubber dam. They were examined yearly for 3 years. One clinician continued the study up to 5 years...
Context in source publication
Context 1
... estimated survival of the three types of Class II restorations is shown in Fig. 4. The distribution of the bulk fractures of the cermet restorations in premolar and molar teeth shows that the fractures prevailed in the upper molars (Fig. 5). The preparations for the fractured cermet restorations (n = 20) were examined for features that could elucidate any relationship between cavity design and the fracture mechanism. No significant differences in cavity dimen- sions were noted (Table IV), nor were the prevalence of other cavity design discrepancies, such as acute axio- ...
Citations
... Die AMSTAR-2 Qualitätsbewertung der zwei weiteren systematischen Reviews, die mittlere AFRs berechneten [6,7] ist kritisch niedrig. Ein Verzerrungsrisiko ist wahrscheinlich, da sich die Berechnung des Effektschätzers der nichtrandomisierten prospektiven Studien auf lediglich eine alte Originalarbeit von Mjör und Jokstad aus 1993 beschränkt [109]. Insofern wurde die Empfehlung als konsensbasierte Empfehlung auf Basis der Daten der neueren Publikationen erarbeitet und verabschiedet. ...
Ziel der Leitlinie ist, Informationen zum Überleben und der Qualität von Kompositrestaurationen in den verschiedenen Kavitätenklassen sowie in den erweiterten Indikationsbereichen verfügbar zu machen, Indikationsbereiche abzugrenzen und Handlungsempfehlungen zur Prozessqualität des Herstellungsprozesses im Sinne einer Qualitätssicherung zu geben.
... Regarding the design, the 62 articles included in the review comprised randomized clinical trials [14,[25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36][37], controlled [14,25,34,38,39], split-mouth [28,35,36,, parallel [30,32,33,[64][65][66][67][68][69][70], only non-randomized and non-controlled clinical trial [71,72], retrospective clinical [73] and some articles did not specify their design [74][75][76][77][78][79][80]. The results of individual studies are presented in Supplementary Table S3. ...
Background
This systematic review and network meta-analysis aimed to compare the clinical efficacy of bioactive and conventional restorative materials in controlling secondary caries (SC) and to provide a classification of these materials according to their effectiveness.
Methods
A search was performed in Pubmed, Web of Science, Embase, BBO, Lilacs, Cochrane Library, Scopus, IBECS and gray literature. Clinical trials were included, with no language or publication date limitations. Paired and network meta-analyses were performed with random-effects models, comparing treatments of interest and classifying them according to effectiveness in the permanent and deciduous dentition and at 1-year or 2/more years of follow-up. The risk of bias and certainty of evidence were evaluated.
Results
Sixty-two studies were included in the qualitative syntheses and 39 in the quantitative ones. In permanent teeth, resin composite (RC) (RR = 2.00; 95%CI = 1.10, 3.64) and amalgam (AAG) (RR = 1.79; 95%CI = 1.04, 3.09) showed a higher risk of SC than Glass Ionomer Cement (GIC). In the deciduous teeth, however, a higher risk of SC was observed with RC than with AAG (RR = 2.46; 95%CI = 1.42, 4.27) and in GIC when compared to Resin-Modified Glass Ionomer Cement (RMGIC = 1.79; 95%CI = 1.04, 3.09). Most randomized clinical trials studies showed low or moderate risk of bias.
Conclusion
There is a difference between bioactive restorative materials for SC control, with GIC being more effective in the permanent teeth and the RMGIC in the deciduous teeth. Bioactive restorative materials can be adjuvants in the control of SC in patients at high risk for caries.
... This outcome, suggests that composite restorations are more likely to fail within a shorter period than amalgam restorations which may be disadvantageous in a period of pandemic. Similarly according to Mjör [19]. who investigated failure rates of composite and amalgam restorations, the median survival age for composite was six years, whereas it was nine years for amalgam. ...
Background and aim:
It is important to provide appropriate dental care for newly erupted permanent first molars (PFMs) since they are susceptible to caries. As the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has led to significant changes in the way dental services are provided to patients, the purpose of this study is to examine the procedure records assigned to PFMs of 6-15 year-olds during the pandemic and analyze the restorative material preferences of the residents of public dental hospitals.
Materials and methods:
Procedure records of patients aged between 6-15 years were extracted from the Public Oral and Dental Health Center, Bursa, Türkiye. All teeth groups except PFMs were excluded, while extracted, survived (restorative/endodontic/prosthetic procedures), and prevented (fissure sealant application) PFMs were analyzed retrospectively. Furthermore, restorative material preferences were analyzed by arch location, cavity surfaces, and dentition types.
Results:
Strong positive correlation was seen between age and PFM extraction (r=0.973; p<0.001) and age and PFM restorative treatments (r= 0.966; p<0.001); a negative correlation was detected between age and fissure sealants (r= -0.984; p<0,001) performed on PFMs of 8-15-year-olds. Amalgam was most often preferred as the restorative material (p<0.05).
Conclusion:
The distribution of treatments and dental restorations can vary based on many factors, and the pandemic conditions may have changed treatment preferences to favor preventive dentistry. The excess of multi-surface restorations may be related to the delay of treatment applications during COVID-19.
... Cyclic loading, caused by mastication and thermal changes during the consumption of hot and cold foods, induces creep, which can lead to a decrease in fracture strength and fatigue limit at the adhesive-dentin interface in CR restorations. Therefore, when using CR in PSBAs, it's important to consider the effect of occlusal stresses on the weakest adhesive-dentin interface concerning restoration aging (13,14). Despite improvements in CR materials and bonding techniques, the use of CR in PSBAs remains a topic of debate due to concerns about unpredictability, microleakage, wear, postoperative sensitivity, moisture control, polymerization shrinkage stress, and technique sensitivity. ...
Various materials and techniques are employed, with composite resins being a popular choice. Factors influencing restoration longevity include material selection, practitioner skill, patient factors, and cavity characteristics. Recent developments in dental materials and techniques have expanded treatment options. Amalgam has historically exhibited superior longevity but faces declining usage due to aesthetic concerns. Composite resins have shown variable longevity, influenced by factors such as cavity location and size. Glass ionomer cements, while biocompatible, have limited mechanical strength. Tunnel restorations and atraumatic restorative treatment restorations have shown varying success rates. Advances in materials, techniques, and bonding agents are shaping the landscape of adhesive dentistry. Adhesive dentistry has evolved significantly with the decline of amalgam and the emergence of innovative materials. Challenges like polymerization shrinkage persist, but promising developments, such as low-shrinking monomers and nanoparticle fillers, are on the horizon. Self-etching adhesives have improved bonding. The longevity of posterior restorations depends on various factors, and practitioners must stay updated on these advancements for optimal patient care.Various materials and techniques are employed, with composite resins being a popular choice. Factors influencing restoration longevity include material selection, practitioner skill, patient factors, and cavity characteristics. Recent developments in dental materials and techniques have expanded treatment options. Amalgam has historically exhibited superior longevity but faces declining usage due to aesthetic concerns. Composite resins have shown variable longevity, influenced by factors such as cavity location and size. Glass ionomer cements, while biocompatible, have limited mechanical strength. Tunnel restorations and atraumatic restorative treatment restorations have shown varying success rates. Advances in materials, techniques, and bonding agents are shaping the landscape of adhesive dentistry. Adhesive dentistry has evolved significantly with the decline of amalgam and the emergence of innovative materials. Challenges like polymerization shrinkage persist, but promising developments, such as low-shrinking monomers and nanoparticle fillers, are on the horizon. Self-etching adhesives have improved bonding. The longevity of posterior restorations depends on various factors, and practitioners must stay updated on these advancements for optimal patient care.
... The reason for presence of pain in Group I could be attributed to the fact that GIC as permanent restorative material is unable to counteract secondary caries formation after a certain time of clinical service. 8,9 However the results were in contrast to several studies which clearly reflected the merits of GICs as restorative materials for both dentitions: GICs show fluoride release and consequently offer some potential to inhibit secondary caries. [10][11][12][13][14][15] In the present study, while 10% cases did fail on the completion of the study, 90% success was recorded in Group I at 12 months. ...
Background: To assess clinical and radiographic efficacy of conventional GIC, stainless steel crown (HT), and Alkasite restoration (Cention N) as management options for cavitated primary molars and to evaluate their success clinico-radiographically in terms of survival, patient’s acceptance and parental satisfaction over a minimum period of 12 months. Methods: IOPAs were taken to assess the extent of caries. Cavitated primary teeth were subjected to following procedures randomly: GROUP I- (GIC) - Isolation followed by soft caries removal, then restoration of cavity with GIC. Patient recalled after 24 hours for finishing and polishing of restoration. GROUP II- (SSC) - Proper isolation followed by soft caries removal. Appropriately sized prefabricated SSC fit and cemented by luting GIC. GROUP III- (AK) - Isolation followed by soft caries removal, restoration of cavity with Alkasite and light cured for setting and finished.Results: In terms of pain, secondary caries and pulpal involvement, 10% cases failed in group I and group III while 100% success was seen in group II. In terms of longevity, maximum dislodgement was seen in group I (30%) followed by group III (10%) while 100% success was seen in group II. In terms of patient and parent acceptance, group III was most widely accepted by patients at baseline while parents were satisfied with group II at the end of the study. Conclusions: All restorative materials were clinically and radiographically successful in restoration of primary molars in terms of survival, patient acceptance and parental satisfaction, however Stainless-Steel crowns proved to be most efficacious.
... Адхезијата на сите ГЈЦ се подобрува со употреба на агенси за кондиционирање на емајлот и дентинот пред поставувањето. (30) . Целите на оваа студија се: ...
... a que existen problemas relacionados con los cambios que sufre la resina una vez polimerizada (contracción de polimerización, coeficiente de expansión térmica), y en relación con el ambiente bucal (abrasión superficial, degradación química, etc.) (3,4) . Estos problemas son responsables del fracaso de las restauraciones, produciendo fallas en la interfaz diente-restauración, generando microfiltración y su consecuente recidiva de caries (5)(6)(7)(8) Para contrarrestar estos problemas, los fabricantes han realizado diferentes modificaciones en su composición, por ejemplo, monómeros con mayor peso molecular (produciendo menor contracción de polimerización), o bien introduciendo mejoras en las partículas de carga inorgánicas (mayor carga, menor tamaño y morfologías distintas), lo cual condujo a mejoras significativas en las propiedades del material (9,10) . Para el estudio del comportamiento de materiales restauradores a largo plazo, el uso de técnicas de envejecimiento acelerado en condiciones estandarizadas de laboratorio son una alternativa efectiva, ya que permiten la simulación del uso clínico de un material en un período corto de tiempo. ...
Objetivos. Evaluar y comparar la relación entre la resistencia de unión inmediata a esmalte y microfiltración de dos sistemas restauradores a base de resina compuesta. Métodos. 40 terceros molares se dividieron aleatoriamente en dos grupos: 20 molares restaurados utilizando el sistema Adper Single bond 2 + Filtek Z250 XT (3M ESPE; ST PAUL, MN, USA); y 20 molares restaurados con el sistema Tetric N Bond + Tetric N Ceram (Ivoclar Vivadent; Schaan, Liechtenstein). La mitad de los dientes de cada grupo se utilizaron para un ensayo de microtracción, mientras que la otra mitad fueron utilizados para un ensayo de microfiltración (n = 10).
Resultados. Las medias y el desvío padrón de la resistencia de unión a microtracción fueron de 27.93 (±9.55) para Adper Single bond 2 + Filtek Z250 XT MPa y 33.12 (±8.18) MPa para Tetric N Bond + Tetric N Ceram (p = 0,049). En cuanto a los valores de microfiltración, no hubo diferencias estadísticamente significativas entre los grupos (p = 0,478). No fue observada una correlación significativa entre la resistencia de unión a la microtracción y la microfiltración (R2 = 0.0909; p = 0.196).
Conclusiones. No se encontró una relación entre los valores de resistencia de unión y el
grado de microfiltración.
... It starts with risk assessment to determine the patient's potential risks to develop new caries lesions based on existing oral environment [5,6]. This concept is paramount in order to prevent restoration failures due to secondary caries which is considered as the most common cause for replacement of dental restorations [7,8]. One integral component of this process is to maintain the balance between pathological and protective factors with focus on prevention and oral hygiene practices. ...
Objectives
To develop a comprehensive yet simple dental follow up and maintenance protocol based on existing guidelines and recommendations.
Methods
A multidisciplinary team reviewed available maintenance and follow up guidelines and recommendations then developed a single protocol for adult dental patients.
Results
The protocol includes ten questions that categorize dental patients into one of three risk categories. Based on the risk category, each patient is assigned a recall interval and recommendations for in office and at home dental care.
Conclusions
Development of a single multidisciplinary follow up and maintenance protocol.
... from 20 studies (article 11, 13-31; MF 3.19 years) [28][29][30][45][46][47][48][49][50][51][52][53][54][55][56][57][58][59][60][61] (Tables 2 and 3). Table 2 illustrates the AFRs of posterior approximal GIC restorations using the conventional technique (7 studies; article 1-7; MF 3.86 years) [18,[41][42][43][44]62,63], which ranged from 1.33% to 22.94% (Mean 6.90%). While those using ART technique (6 studies; article 10, 12-15, 26; MF 4.83 years) [31,47,48,54,55,64] varied between 0% and 35.81% and showed a higher mean AFR (10.7%) than conventionally placed restorations. ...
Objectives:
To review the clinical performance of GIC restorations using calculated annual failure rates and qualitative descriptions based on conventional and ART techniques from two aspects: occlusal and approximal cavities in permanent or deciduous posterior teeth.
Sources:
Search strategies was undertaken of the PubMed database from January 1983 to March 2018. Additional articles were collected by hand searching.
Study selection:
The following basic search terms, "(glass ionomer cement) and (clinical performance or survival or ART or atraumatic restorative or high viscosity)" with inclusion and exclusion criteria according to PRISMA flow diagram.
Data:
At total of 904 articles were initially identified. Finally, 67 articles were included for quantitative and qualitative analysis after applying the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Assessment of risk of bias was performed for all included studies using ROBINS-I.
Conclusions:
For single-surface occlusal or multi-surface GIC restorations, the conventional technique showed better survival than ART technique regardless of dentition type (primary or permanent). When comparing in the same treatment technique, AFRs of approximal or multi-surface GIC restorations were greater than those of single-surface (occlusal) restorations, irrespective of dentition type. RMGIC-conventional technique seems to be promising for restoring approximal cavities of primary teeth compared to other restorative materials.
Clinical significance:
The GIC-ART technique is an alternative option for single-surface (occlusal) restorations in permanent and primary teeth. However, the application of the GIC-ART technique for load-bearing approximal restorations should be carefully considered before employing this option, especially in primary teeth.
... However, dental amalgam has a 150-year proven track record of as one of the safest, most durable, and least expensive materials used to a fill a cavity. [14] Ongoing scientific studies conducted over the past 100 years continue to show that amalgam is not harmful. [14,15] When it comes to criteria for choosing the material 10% people decide the type of restorative material based on cost, 8% of people decide the type of restorative material based on esthetics, 42% of people decide the type of restorative material based on durability, and 40% of people prefer all the above and when it comes to the knowledge of the material 100% of the participants did not know the advantages and disadvantages of neither amalgam nor composite. ...
... [14] Ongoing scientific studies conducted over the past 100 years continue to show that amalgam is not harmful. [14,15] When it comes to criteria for choosing the material 10% people decide the type of restorative material based on cost, 8% of people decide the type of restorative material based on esthetics, 42% of people decide the type of restorative material based on durability, and 40% of people prefer all the above and when it comes to the knowledge of the material 100% of the participants did not know the advantages and disadvantages of neither amalgam nor composite. [16] Smales et al. in his study stated that when compared with similar amalgam restorations, placing composite restorations (if they are indicated) takes approximately 2.5 times longer because complex incremental techniques are needed. ...
