The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice

Register      Login

SEARCH WITHIN CONTENT

FIND ARTICLE

Volume / Issue

Online First

Archive
Volume  25 (2024)
Volume  24 (2023)
Volume  23 (2022)
Volume  22 (2021)
Volume  21 (2020)
Volume  20 (2019)
Volume  19 (2018)
Volume  18 (2017)
Volume  17 (2016)
Volume  16 (2015)
Volume  15 (2014)
Volume  14 (2013)
Volume  13 (2012)
Volume  12 (2011)
Volume  11 (2010)
Volume  10 (2009)
Volume  9 (2008)
Volume  8 (2007)
Volume  7 (2006)
Volume  6 (2005)
Volume  5 (2004)
Volume  4 (2003)
Volume  3 (2002)
Volume  2 (2001)
Volume  1 (1999)
Related articles

VOLUME 7 , ISSUE 5 ( November, 2006 ) > List of Articles

RESEARCH ARTICLE

One-Year Clinical Evaluation of Two Resin Composites, Two Polymerization Methods, and a Resin-Modified Glass Ionomer in Non-Carious Cervical Lesions

Hervé Tassery, Stephen Koubi, Anne Raskin, Frédéric Bukiet, Christian Pignoly, Edwige Toca

Citation Information : Tassery H, Koubi S, Raskin A, Bukiet F, Pignoly C, Toca E. One-Year Clinical Evaluation of Two Resin Composites, Two Polymerization Methods, and a Resin-Modified Glass Ionomer in Non-Carious Cervical Lesions. J Contemp Dent Pract 2006; 7 (5):42-53.

DOI: 10.5005/jcdp-7-5-42

License: CC BY-NC 3.0

Published Online: 01-02-2008

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2006; The Author(s).


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 microcomparison 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.

Citation

Koubi S, Raskin A, Bukiet F, Pignoly C, Toca E, Tassery H. One-Year Clinical Evaluation of Two Resin Composites, Two Polymerization Methods, and a Resin-Modified Glass Ionomer in Non-Carious Cervical Lesions. J Contemp Dent Pract 2006 November;(7)5:042-053.

PDF Share
  1. The prevalence of non-carious cervical lesions in permanent dentition. J Oral Rehabil 2004;31:117-23.
  2. Dental erosion clinical diagnosis and case history. Eur J Oral Sci 1996;104:191-196.
  3. Progression of and risk factors for dental erosion and wedge-shaped defects over a 6-years period. Caries Res 2000;34:182-187.
  4. The aetiology of the non-carious cervical lesion. Int Dent J. 1999;49:139-43.
  5. Abfraction lesions: myth or reality? J Esthet Restor Dent. 2003;15:259-60.
  6. Dental erosion in Icelandic teenagers in relation to dietary and lifestyle factors. Acta Odontol Scand 2003;61:25-8.
  7. Restorative therapy for erosive lesions. Eur J Oral Sci 1996;104:229-240.
  8. Clinical management and tissue changes associated with wear and trauma. Pulp-Dentin biology in restorative dentistry. Quintessence Publishing Co., Inc. 2002. Chap 5; 77-94.
  9. Clinical evaluation of hydride ionomer restoratives in class V abrasion lesions: Two-year results. Quintessence Int 1997;28:255-258.
  10. Two-year clinical performance of Class V resin-modified glass-ionomer and resin composite restorations. Oper Dent. 2003;28:477-81.
  11. Two-year clinical evaluation of four polyacid-modified resin composites and a resinmodified glass-ionomer cement in Class V lesions. Quintessence Int. 2002;33:542-8.
  12. Three-year clinical evaluation of a resin modified glass-ionomer cement and a composite resin in non-carious class V lesions. J Oral Rehabil. 2002;29:1037-41.
  13. Sites of dental erosion are saliva-dependent. J Oral Rehabil. 2002; 29: 35-43.
  14. Correlation of noncarious cervical lesion size and occlusal wear in a single adult over a 14-year time span. J Prosthet Dent. 2000;84:436-43.
  15. Development of noncarious cervical notch lesions in vitro. J Esthet Dent 2000;12:57
  16. Reduced light energy density decreases post-gel contraction while maintaining degree of conversion in composites. J Dent 1998;26:695-700.
  17. Clinical Evaluation of posterior composite restoration: The 10-year report. J Adhesive Dent 2001;13:185-194.
  18. Sensitivity restored of Class V abrasion/erosion lesions: J Am Dent Assoc 1990;121:694-6.
  19. Eighteen-month clinical evaluation of a filled and unfilled dentin adhesive. J Dent 2001;29:1-6.
  20. dental erosion. Definition, classification and links. Eur J oral Sci 1996;104:151-155.
  21. Characteristics of non-carious cervical lesions: a clinical investigation. J Am Dent Assoc 2002;133:725-733.
  22. Five-year double-blind randomised clinical evaluation of a resin-modified glassionomer and a polyacid-modified resin in non-carious cervical lesions. J Adhes Dent 2003;5:323-332.
  23. Class V lesions restored with four different tooth-coloured materials-3 year results. Clin Oral Invest 2001;5:31-39.
  24. Tooth-colored filling materials for the restoration of cervical lesions: a 24-month follow-up study. Oper Dent 2000;25:251-258.
  25. Noncarious cervical lesions: the decision to ignore or restore. J Esthet Dent 1992;4:55-64.
  26. Two-year clinical effectiveness of a resinmodified glass-ionomer adhesive. Am J Dent. 2003;16:363-8.
  27. Comparative physicomechanical characterisation of new hydride restorative materials with conventional glass-ionomer and resin composite restorative materials. J Dent Res 1997;76:883-894.
  28. Microleakage of composite resin and glass ionomer cement restorations in retentive and non-retentive cervical cavity preparations. J Prothet Dent 1992, 68:616-623.
  29. Clinical evaluation of tooth-colored materials in cervical lesions. Am J Dent 1996;9:15-8.
  30. Magnification in dentistry: useful tool or another gimmick?. J Am Dent Assoc 2003;134:1647-50.
  31. Preventive and minimally invasive treatment of erosions. Oral Health Prev Dent 2004;2:supplement 1: 321-325.
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.