RESEARCH PAPER
Long-term clinical performance of experimental glass-ionomer cement with the bi-functional fluid
1
Department of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, Medical University of Lublin, Lublin, Poland
Corresponding author
Renata Chałas
Department of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, Medical University of Lublin, Karmelicka 7, 20-081 Lublin, Poland
Department of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, Medical University of Lublin, Karmelicka 7, 20-081 Lublin, Poland
J Pre Clin Clin Res. 2015;9(2):109-114
KEYWORDS
ABSTRACT
Introduction:
Glass-ionomers have the ability to chemically bond to enamel and dentin, and are characterized by long-term fluoride release and absorption of fluoride from surrounding sources.
Objective:
The aim of the presented long-term clinical trial was to evaluate and compare the three-year clinical performance of the experimental glass-ionomer cement ‘SJZ/W’ with the bi-functional fluid placed in carious and non-carious cavities.
Material and Methods:
Seventy restorations were made in adult patients of both genders. Clinical evaluation was performed at baseline and yearly intervals after placement using Ryge’s scale, considering the surface structure, anatomical form of the restoration and marginal integrity.
Results:
Immediately after placement, 70 restorations were assessed, 65 of which were subject to clinical evaluation after a year, 63 subject to clinical evaluation after 2 years, and 3-year evaluation was made for 55 restorations. The material showed minor changes in evaluated parameters and no differences were detected between their performance at baseline, and after three years only in anatomical shape. No post-operative sensitivity was recorded.
Conclusions:
The examined glass-ionomer ‘SJZ/W’ provided an acceptable clinical performance over a three-year period.
Glass-ionomers have the ability to chemically bond to enamel and dentin, and are characterized by long-term fluoride release and absorption of fluoride from surrounding sources.
Objective:
The aim of the presented long-term clinical trial was to evaluate and compare the three-year clinical performance of the experimental glass-ionomer cement ‘SJZ/W’ with the bi-functional fluid placed in carious and non-carious cavities.
Material and Methods:
Seventy restorations were made in adult patients of both genders. Clinical evaluation was performed at baseline and yearly intervals after placement using Ryge’s scale, considering the surface structure, anatomical form of the restoration and marginal integrity.
Results:
Immediately after placement, 70 restorations were assessed, 65 of which were subject to clinical evaluation after a year, 63 subject to clinical evaluation after 2 years, and 3-year evaluation was made for 55 restorations. The material showed minor changes in evaluated parameters and no differences were detected between their performance at baseline, and after three years only in anatomical shape. No post-operative sensitivity was recorded.
Conclusions:
The examined glass-ionomer ‘SJZ/W’ provided an acceptable clinical performance over a three-year period.
REFERENCES (25)
1.
Nicholson JW. Modern dental restorative materials and their clinical performance. Dental Forum. 2004; 31(2): 11–18.
2.
Krämer N, Frankenberger R. Clinical performance of condensable metal-reinforced glass ionomer cement in primary molars. Br Dent J. 2001; 190(6): 317–321.
3.
Czarnecka B, Zieleniewska A, Dylewski Ł, Marcinowski M, Twarowska E, Alagierska A, Prylińska A. The effect of preparation of a glass-ionomer cement on its compressive strength. J Stoma. 2006; 59(6): 388–392.
4.
Limanowska-Shaw H, Czarnecka B. The role of dental materials in the prevention of dental caries. J Stoma. 2005; 58(6): 422–427.
5.
Czarnecka B. Buffering of water solutions of organic acids by glass-ionomer cements and related materials. Dental Forum. 2008; 36(2): 37–44.
6.
Raczyńska M, Jodkowska E, Iracki J, Karaś J. Comparison of certain properties of glass-ionomer cements – a study in vitro. Dental Forum. 2005; 33(2): 17–22.
7.
Papagiannoulis L, Kakaboura A, Eliades G. In vivo vs in vitro anticariogenic behavior of glass-ionomer and resin composite restorative materials. Dent Mat. 2002; 18(8): 561–569.
8.
Tyas MJ, Anusavice KJ, Frencken J, Mount GJ. Minimal intervention dentistry – a review. Int Dent J. 2000; 50(1): 1–12.
9.
Cvar J, Ryge G. Reprint of criteria for the clinical evaluation of dental restorative material. Clin Oral Invest. 2005; 9(4): 215–232.
10.
Kaczmarek U. Fluoride release from dental restorative materials and secondary caries. Dent Med Probl. 2005; 42(2): 333–340.
11.
Wójcik-Chęcińska I, Chałas R, Bachanek T, Karaś J, Kamińska-Pikiewicz K, Strycharz-Dudziak M. Handling properties of experimental glass-ionomer cement with dual function SJZ/W liquid for use in restorative dentistry. Mag Stomatol. 2011; 11(6): 54–58.
12.
Earl MS, Mount GJ, Hume WR. The effect of varnishes and other surface treatments on water movement across the surface of a glass-ionomer cement. II. Austr Dent J. 1989; 34(4): 326–329.
13.
De Moor RJ, Stassen IG, van ‘t Veldt Y, Torbeyns D, Hommez GM. Two-year clinical performance of glass ionomer and resin composite restorations in xerostomic head- and neck-irradiated cancer patient. Clin Oral Invest. 2011; 15(1): 31–38.
14.
Frankenberger R, Garcia-Godoy F, Krämer N. Clinical performance of viscous glass-ionomer cement in posterior cavities over two years. Int J Dent. 2010; 47(4): 450–455.
15.
Jefferies SR. Prospective observations of a new bioactive luting cement: 2-year follow up. J Prosth. 2012; 21(1): 33–41.
16.
Friedl K, Hiller KA, Friedl KH. Clinical performance of a new glass ionomer based restoration system: a retrospective cohort study. Dent Mat. 2011; 27(10): 1031–1037.
17.
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 Invest. 2013; 18(3): 753–759.
18.
Dionysopoulos P, Gerasimou P, Tolidis K. The effect of home-use fluoride gel on glass-ionomer, compomer and composite resin restorations. J Oral Rehabil. 2003; 30(7): 683–689.
19.
De Moor RJ, Verbeeck RM. Changes in surface hardness of conventional restorative glass ionomer cements. Biomaterials. 1998; 19(24): 2269–2275.
20.
Asmussen E, Peutzfeldt A. Long-term fluoride release from a glass ionomer cement, a compomer, and from experimental resin composites. Acta Odont Scand. 2002; 40(2): 93–97.
21.
Pereira PN, Inokoshi S, Tagami J. In vitro secondary caries inhibition around fluoride releasing materials. J Dent. 1998; 25(5–6): 505–510.
22.
Xu X, Burgess JO. Comprehensive strength, fluoride release and recharge of fluoride-releasing materials. Biomaterials. 2003; 24(14): 2451–2461.
23.
Pawluk K., Booth SE, Coleman NJ, Nicholson JW. The kinetics of fluoride uptake from aqueous solutions by immature glass-ionomer dental cements. Dental Forum. 2008; 36(2): 11–14.
24.
Yap A, Lee CM. Water sorption and solubility of resin-modified polyalkenoate cements. J Oral Rehabil. 1997; 24(4): 310–314.
25.
Mount GJ. An atlas of glass-ionomer cements. A clininician’s guide. 3rd ed. Martin Dunitz, London 2002.
| eISSN: | 1898-7516 |
| ISSN: | 1898-2395 |
We process personal data collected when visiting the website. The function of obtaining information about users and their behavior is carried out by voluntarily entered information in forms and saving cookies in end devices. Data, including cookies, are used to provide services, improve the user experience and to analyze the traffic in accordance with the Privacy policy. Data are also collected and processed by Google Analytics tool (more).
You can change cookies settings in your browser. Restricted use of cookies in the browser configuration may affect some functionalities of the website.
You can change cookies settings in your browser. Restricted use of cookies in the browser configuration may affect some functionalities of the website.
