Amaç: Yeni bir cam hibrid restoratif materyalin geniş ve derin 2. sınıf preparasyonlarda 18 ay sonundaki klinik performansını, rezin kompozit ile karşılaştırarak değerlendirmektir. Gereç ve Yöntemler: Otuz yedi hastada proksimal genişliği kasp tepelerinden 1-1,5 mm uzaklıkta olan 108 2. sınıf çürük lezyonu cam hibrid restoratif materyal (EQUIA Forte, GC, Tokyo, Japonya) veya selektif pürüzlendirme ile kombine mikro-hibrid rezin kompozit (G-ænial Posterior, GC, Tokyo, Japonya) kullanılarak iki diş hekimi tarafından üretici talimatlarına göre restore edildi. Restorasyonlar çalışma grubunda yer alan diğer 2 bağımsız gözlemci tarafından uygulandıktan 1 hafta sonra (başlangıç), 6, 12 ve 18. aylarda modifiye USPHS kriterlerine göre değerlendirildi. Tüm kontrol randevularında her 2 gruptan rastgele seçilen bir restorasyon örneğinden negatif replikalar hazırlanarak taramalı elektron mikroskobu (SEM) ile restorasyonların yüzey özellikleri incelendi. Veriler istatistiksel olarak analiz edildi. Bulgular: On sekiz ay sonunda, 32 (kontrollere gelme oranı: %86,5) hastada 90 restorasyon değerlendirildi. 4 cam hibrid restorasyon; 3'ü tamamen düşme ve 1'i proksimal bölgesinde oluşan kırıktan dolayı 12. ayda kaybedildi. Sadece 6 cam hibrid restorasyon başlangıçta, 6, 12 ve 18. aylarda renk açısından bravo olarak skorlandırıldı (p<0,05). İki restoratif materyal arasında diğer değerlendirme kriterleri yönünden anlamlı farklılıklar görülmedi (p>0,05). On sekizinci ay kontrolünde yapılan SEM incelemelerinde her iki restoratif materyal kabul edilebilir yüzey ve kenar uyumu özellikleri gösterdi. Sonuç: Cam hibrid restorasyonlar istatistiksel olarak anlamlı renk uyumsuzluğu göstermesine rağmen, her iki restoratif materyal 18 ay sonra geniş 2. sınıf preparasyonların restorasyonunda başarılı performans gösterdi.
Anahtar Kelimeler: Kompozit rezin; cam iyonomer; 2. sınıf preparasyon; klinik performans
Objective: To evaluate the clinical performance of a glass hybrid restorative compared to a resin composite in the restoration of large and deep class 2 preparations after 18 months. Material and Methods: A total of 108 extended size-with the width of the proximal box not interfering with the peak of the cusps and the proximal box in occlusion-class II lesions in 37 patients were either restored with a glass hybrid restorative (EQUIA Forte, GC, Tokyo, Japan), or with a micro-hybrid composite resin (G-ænial Posterior, GC, Tokyo, Japan) in combination with selective etching by two experienced operators according to the manufacturer's instructions. Two independent examiners evaluated the restorations at baseline and 6-, 12- and 18-month recalls according to the modified USPHS criteria. Negative replicas at each recall were observed under scanning electron microscopy (SEM) to examine surface characteristics. Data were analyzed statistically. Results: After 18 months, 90 restorations were evaluated in 32 (recall rate: 86.5%) patients. Four glass hybrid restorations were missing; 3 were due to bulk and 1 was due to proximal fracture at 12 months. Only 6 restorations were scored as bravo also at baseline, 6-, 12- and 18-month recalls for color (p>0.05). No significant differences were observed between the two restorative materials for the other criteria evaluated (p>0.05). SEM observations exhibited acceptable surface and marginal adaptation characteristics for both restorative materials at 18 months control. Conclusions: Although glass hybrid restorations statistically significant mismatch in color, both restorative materials exhibited successful performances for the restoration of large class 2 preparations after 18-month.
Keywords: Composite resin; glass ionomer; class 2 preparation; clinical performance
- Rasines Alcaraz MG, Veitz-Keenan A, Sahrmann P, Schmidlin PR, Davis D, Iheozor-Ejiofor Z. Direct composite resin fillings versus amalgam fillings for permanent or adult posterior teeth. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014;31(3):CD005620. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- Kielbassa AM, Glockner G, Wolgin M, Glockner K. Systematic review on highly viscous glass-ionomer cement/resin coating restorations (Part I): Do they merge Minamata Convention and minimum intervention dentistry? Quintessence Int. 2016;47(10):813-23.
- Kielbassa AM, Glockner G, Wolgin M, Glockner K. Systematic review on highly viscous glass-ionomer cement/resin coating restorations (Part II): Do they merge Minamata Convention and minimum intervention dentistry? Quintessence Int. 2017;48(1):9-18.
- Reichl FX, Durner J, Hickel R, Kunzelmann KH, Jewett A, Wang MY, et al. Distribution and excretion of TEGDMA in guinea pigs and mice. J Dent Res. 2001;80(5):1412-5. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- Reichl FX, Durner J, Kunzelmann KH, Hickel R, Spahl W, Hume WR, et al. Biological clearance of TEGDMA in guinea pigs. Arch Toxicol. 2001;75(1):22-7. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- Antony K, Genser D, Hiebinger C, Windisch F. Longevity of dental amalgam in comparison to composite materials. GMS Health Technol Assess. 2008;13(4):Doc12.
- Mahmoud SH, El-Embaby AE, AbdAllah AM. Clinical performance of ormocer, nanofilled, and nanoceramic resin composites in Class I and Class II restorations: a three-year evaluation. Oper Dent. 2014;39(1):32-42. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- Versluis A, Tantbirojn D. Theoretical considerations of contraction stress. Compend Contin Edu Dent Suppl. 1999(25):S24-32.
- Berg JH, Croll TP. Glass ionomer restorative cement systems: an update. Pediatr Dent. 2015;37(2):116-24.
- Bonifácio CC, Werner A, Kleverlaan CJ. Coating glass-ionomer cements with a nanofilled resin. Acta Odontol Scand. 2012;70(6):471-7. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- Hickel R, Kaaden C, Paschos E, Buerkle V, García-Godoy F, Manhart J. Longevity of occlusally-stressed restorations in posterior primary teeth. Am J Dent. 2005;18(3):198-211.
- Scholtanus JD, Huysmans MC. Clinical failure of class-II restorations of a highly viscous glass-ionomer material over a 6-year period: a retrospective study. J Dent. 2007;35(2):156-62. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- Frankenberger R, Garcia-Godoy F, Krämer N. Clinical performance of viscous glass ionomer cement in posterior cavities over two years. Int J Dent. 2009;2009:781462. [Crossref] [PubMed] [PMC]
- Mickenautsch S. High-viscosity glass-ionomer cements for direct posterior tooth restorations in permanent teeth: the evidence in brief. J Dent. 2016;55:121-3. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- Mickenautsch S, Yengopal V. Failure rate of direct high-viscosity glass-ionomer versus hybrid resin composite restorations in posterior permanent teeth-a systematic review. Open Dent J. 2015;9:438-48. [Crossref] [PubMed] [PMC]
- Friedl K, Hiller KA, Friedl KH. Clinical performance of a new glass ionomer based restoration system: a retrospective cohort study. Dent Mater. 2011;27(10):1031-7. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- Diem VT, Tyas MJ, Ngo HC, Phuong LH, Khanh ND. The effect of a nano-filled resin coating on the 3-year clinical performance of a conventional high-viscosity glass-ionomer cement. Clin Oral Investig. 2014;18(3):753-9. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- Klinke T, Daboul A, Turek A, Frankenberger R, Hickel R, Biffar R. Clinical performance during 48 months of two current glass ionomer restorative systems with coatings: a randomized clinical trial in the field. Trials. 2016;17(1): 239. [Crossref] [PubMed] [PMC]
- Gurgan S, Kutuk ZB, Ergin E, Oztas SS, Cakir FY. Four-year randomized clinical trial to evaluate the clinical performance of a glass ionomer restorative system. Oper Dent. 2015;40(2):134-43. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- Gurgan S, Kutuk ZB, Ergin E, Oztas SS, Cakir FY. Clinical performance of a glass ionomer restorative system: a 6-year evaluation. Clin Oral Investig. 2017;21(7):2335-43. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- Schwendicke F, Kniess JLM, Paris S, Blunck U. Margin integrity and secondary caries of lined or non-lined composite and glass hybrid restorations after selective excavation in vitro. Oper Dent. 2017;42(2):155-64. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- Palaniappan S, Bharadwaj D, Mattar DL, Peumans M, Van Meerbeek B, Lambrechts P. Three-year randomized clinical trial to evaluate the clinical performance and wear of a nanocomposite versus a hybrid composite. Dent Mater. 2009;25(11):1302-14. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- Leprince JG, Palin WM, Hadis MA, Devaux J, Leloup G. Progress in dimethacrylate-based dental composite technology and curing efficiency. Dent Mater. 2013;29(2):139-56. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- Jang JH, Park SH, Hwang IN. Polymerization shrinkage and depth of cure of bulk-fill resin composites and highly filled flowable resin. Oper Dent. 2015;40(2):172-80. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- Baig MS, Fleming GJ. Conventional glass-ionomer materials: a review of the developments in glass powder, polyacid liquid and the strategies of reinforcement. J Dent. 2015;43(8):897-912. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- Mickenautsch S, Yengopal V. Do laboratory results concerning high-viscosity glass-ionomers versus amalgam for tooth restorations indicate similar effect direction and magnitude than that of controlled clinical trials? - A meta-epidemiological study. PLoS One. 2015;10(7):e0132246. [Crossref] [PubMed] [PMC]
- Esteves Barata TJ, Bresciani E, Cestari Fagundes T, Gigo Cefaly DF, Pereira Lauris JR, Lima Navarro MF. Fracture resistance of Class II glass-ionomer cement restorations. Am J Dent. 2008;21(3):163-7.
- McCracken MS, Gordan VV, Litaker MS, Funkhouser E, Fellows JL, Shamp DG, et al. A 24-month evaluation of amalgam and resin-based composite restorations Findings from The National Dental Practice-Based Research Network. J Am Dent Assoc. 2013;144(6):583-93. [Crossref] [PubMed] [PMC]
- Bernardo M, Luis H, Martin MD, Leroux BG, Rue T, Leitão J, et al. Survival and reasons for failure of amalgam versus composite posterior restorations placed in a randomized clinical trial. J Am Dent Assoc. 2007;138(6): 775-83. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- Opdam NJ, Bronkhorst EM, Loomans BA, Huysmans MC. 12-year survival of composite vs. amalgam restorations. J Dent Res. 2010;89(10):1063-7. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- Mickenautsch S, Yengopal V. Caries-preventive effect of high-viscosity glass ionomer and resin-based fissure sealants on permanent teeth: a systematic review of clinical trials. PLoS One. 2016;11(1):e0146512. [Crossref] [PubMed] [PMC]
- Türkün LS, Kanik Ö. A prospective six-year clinical study evaluating reinforced glass ionomer cements with resin coating on posterior teeth: quo vadis? Oper Dent. 2016;41(6): 587-98. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- Ong J, Yap AU, Hong JY, Eweis AH, Yahya NA. Viscoelastic properties of contemporary bulk-fill restoratives: a dynamic-mechanical analysis. Oper Dent. 2018;43(3):307-14. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- Hickel R, Peschke A, Tyas M, Mjör I, Bayne S, Peters M, et al. FDI World Dental Federation-clinical criteria for the evaluation of direct and indirect restorations. Update and clinical examples. J Adhes Dent. 2010;12(4):259-72. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- Grogono AL, McInnes PM, Zinck JH, Weinberg R. Posterior composite and glass ionomer/composite laminate restorations: 2-year clinical results. Am J Dent. 1990;3(4): 147-52.
- Lohbauer U, Krämer N, Siedschlag G, Schubert EW, Lauerer B, Müller FA, et al. Strength and wear resistance of a dental glass-ionomer cement with a novel nanofilled resin coating. Am J Dent. 2011;24(2):124-8.
.: İşlem Listesi