The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice

Register      Login

SEARCH WITHIN CONTENT

FIND ARTICLE

Volume / Issue

Online First

Archive
Related articles

VOLUME 17 , ISSUE 12 ( December, 2016 ) > List of Articles

RESEARCH ARTICLE

In vitro Comparative Evaluation of Various Restorative Materials used for restoring Class III Cavities in Deciduous Anterior Teeth: A Clinical Study

Deepak Khandelwal, Shweta Nihalani, Harsh Priyank, Ankita Verma, Esha Chaudhary

Citation Information : Khandelwal D, Nihalani S, Priyank H, Verma A, Chaudhary E. In vitro Comparative Evaluation of Various Restorative Materials used for restoring Class III Cavities in Deciduous Anterior Teeth: A Clinical Study. J Contemp Dent Pract 2016; 17 (12):1022-1026.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10024-1975

Published Online: 00-12-2016

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2016; Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) Ltd.


Abstract

Introduction

Beauty standards in today's modernized world scenario are formed by well-aligned and well-designed bright white teeth. One of the major reasons behind patients reporting to dental clinics is pain. Caries in the anterior primary teeth forms one of the major concerns from a restorative point of view. Very few studies are quoted in literature which stresses on the follow-up of anterior restorations in primary teeth. Hence, we evaluated and compared the efficacy of composite resin and resin-modified glass ionomer cement (RGIC) for class III restorations in primary anterior teeth.

Materials and methods

The present study was conducted in the pediatric dental wing and included a total of 80 patients aged 3 to 5½ years who reported with the chief complaint of carious lesions in the primary anterior teeth. Patients having minimal of a pair of similar appearing small carious lesions on the same proximal surfaces of the deciduous maxillary incisors were included for the study. All the patients were randomly divided into two groups: One in which RGIC restoration was done and other in which composite restoration was done. Cavity preparation was done and filling of the cavity with the restorative materials was carried out. Assessment of the restorations was done at 4, 8, and 12 months time following criteria given by Ryge et al. All the results were analyzed by Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) software. Mann–Whitney test and one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) were used to evaluate the level of significance; p value less than 0.05 was considered as significant.

Results

For composite and RGIC restorations, the mean score for anatomic shape was 1.21 and 1.10 respectively. While comparing the clinical parameters, nonsignificant results were obtained between composite and RGIC restorative materials at 4-, 8-, and 12-month interval. On comparing the clinical parameters for individual restorative materials at different time intervals, statistically significant results were obtained only for anatomical shape and form.

Conclusion

Both RGIC and composite resin restorative materials showed acceptable clinical outcomes after 12 months of follow-up in deciduous anterior teeth. In restoring class III restorations in primary anterior teeth, both the restorative materials showed similar outcome.

Clinical significance
How to cite this article

Priyank H, Verma A, Gupta K, Chaudhary E, Khandelwal D, Nihalani S. In vitro Comparative Evaluation of Various Restorative Materials used for restoring Class III Cavities in Deciduous Anterior Teeth: A Clinical Study. J Contemp Dent Pract 2016;17(12):1022-1026.


PDF Share
  1. Esthetic crown for primary teeth: a review. Ann Essences Dent 2010 Apr;2(2):87-93.
  2. Esthetics in primary teeth. Int Res J Pharm 2013;4:80-82.
  3. Treatment of severely mutilated incisors: a challenge to the pedodontist. J Indian Soc Pedod Prev Dent 2007;25(Suppl):34S-36S.
  4. Esthetic and functional rehabilitation of primary teeth in an emotionally immature child under general anesthesia. Natl J Dent Speciality Res 2014;2:35-37.
  5. Comparative in vivo evaluation of restoring severely mutilated primary anterior teeth with biological post and crown preparation and reinforced composite restoration. J Indian Soc Pedod Prev Dent 2008 Dec;26(4):141-148.
  6. Clinical evaluation of resin composite and resin modified glass ionomer in class III restorations of primary maxillary incisors: a comparative in vivo study. Int J Clin Paediatr Pract 2009 May;2(2):13-19.
  7. Reasons for replacement of restorations in permanent teeth in general dental practice. Int J Dent 2000 Dec;50(6):361-366.
  8. Long term evaluation of extensive restorations in permanent teeth. J Dent 2003 Aug;31(6):395-405.
  9. Reasons for the placement and replacement of restorations in vocational training practices. Prim Dent Care 1999 Jan;6(1):17-20.
  10. Restorations longevity and analysis of reasons for the placement and replacement of restorations provided by vocational dental practitioners and their trainers in the United Kingdom. Quintessence Int 1999 Apr;30(4):234-242.
  11. Longevity of glass ionomer cements. J Prosthet Dent 1986 Jun;55(6):682-685.
  12. Restorative dentistry for the primary dentition. In: Casamassimo, PS; Fields, HW; McTigue, DJ; Nowak, AJ, editors. Pediatric dentistry: infancy through adolescence. 5th ed. St. Louis: Saunders; 2013. p. 324.
  13. The effect of airborne-particle abrasion on the shear bond strength of four restorative materials to enamel and dentin. J Prosthet Dent 2004 Sep;92(3):245-249.
  14. Microleakage of three sealants following conventional, bur, and air-abrasion preparation of pits and fissures. Int J Paediatr Dent 2001 Nov;11(6):409-416.
  15. A retrospective look at esthetic resin composite and glass-ionomer Class III restorations: a 2-year clinical evaluation. Quintessence Int 1998 Feb;29(2):87-93.
  16. One-year clinical performance of a resin-modified glass ionomer and a resin composite restorative material in unprepared class V restorations. Oper Dent 2002 Mar-Apr;27(2):112-116.
  17. Three-year clinical evaluation of a resin modified glass-ionomer cement and a composite resin in noncarious class V lesions. J Oral Rehabil 2002 Nov;29(11):1037-1041.
  18. Clinical evaluation of compomer in primary teeth: 1-year results. J Am Dent Assoc 1997 Aug;128(8):1088-1096.
  19. Clinical comparison of various aesthetic restorative options for coronal build-up of primary anterior teeth. Dent Res J (Isfahan) 2015 Nov-Dec;12(6):574-580.
  20. Two-year clinical evaluation of nonvital tooth whitening and resin composite restorations. J Esthet Restor Dent 2005;17(6):369-378.
  21. 5-year clinical performance of resin composite versus resin modified glass ionomer restorative system in non-carious cervical lesions. Oper Dent 2006 Jul-Aug;31(4):403-408.
  22. Clinical evaluation of three restorative materials applied in a minimal intervention caries treatment approach. J Public Health Dent 2003 Fall;63(4):221-226.
  23. Treatment of a maxillary central incisor with class III invasive cervical resorption and compromised ferrule: a clinical report. J Prosthet Dent 2014 May;111(5):356-361.
  24. Clinical effectiveness of direct anterior restorations – a meta-analysis. Dent Mater 2015 May;31(5):481-495.
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.