The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice

Register      Login

SEARCH WITHIN CONTENT

FIND ARTICLE

Volume / Issue

Online First

Archive
Related articles

VOLUME 9 , ISSUE 2 ( February, 2008 ) > List of Articles

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Evaluation of the Clinical Behavior of Resin Modified Glass Ionomer Cement on Primary Molars: A Comparative One-year Study

A. R. Prabhaker, O. S. Raju, Ameet J. Kurthukoti, V. Satish

Citation Information : Prabhaker AR, Raju OS, Kurthukoti AJ, Satish V. Evaluation of the Clinical Behavior of Resin Modified Glass Ionomer Cement on Primary Molars: A Comparative One-year Study. J Contemp Dent Pract 2008; 9 (2):130-137.

DOI: 10.5005/jcdp-9-2-130

License: CC BY-NC 3.0

Published Online: 01-02-2008

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2008; Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) Ltd.


Abstract

Aim

The objectives of the present study were to evaluate and compare the clinical behavior of resin modified glass ionomer cement (RMGIC) on primary molars with conventional and modified cavity preparations.

Methods and Materials

Forty-two children, 5-9 years of age, having bilateral initial occlusal caries on the mandibular primary second molars were selected for the study. A split mouth design was employed where conventional Class I cavities with a 90° cavosurface angle were prepared randomly on primary second molars on one side and modified cavities with a 1 mm straight bevel along the cavosurface margin on the contra-lateral side. These cavities were restored with RMGIC. The restorations were evaluated during subsequent visits, for a period of one year.

Results

At the end of one year, 90% of the restorations survived in the conventional cavity group whereas 100% of the restorations survived in the modified cavity group.

Conclusion

Incorporation of a bevel in Class I cavities increases the survival rate of RMGIC restorations. There was no significant difference in the clinical behavior between the two groups. However, beveling does contribute to long term clinical success of these restorations.

Clinical Significance

Incorporation of a straight bevel in conventional cavities will improve the retention of RMGIC by increasing the bonding area and enhancing the desired properties of the material.

Citation

Prabhakar AR, Raju OS, Kurthukoti AJ, Satish V. Evaluation of the Clinical Behavior of Resin Modified Glass Ionomer Cement on Primary Molars: A Comparative One-year Study. J Contemp Dent Pract 2008 February;(9)2:130-137.


PDF Share
  1. Clinical performance of resin-modified glass ionomer cement restorations in primary teeth – A retrospective evaluation. J Am Dent Assoc 2001; 132;1110-16.
  2. Short term fluoride release uptake of glass ionomer restoratives. Dent Mater 1995; 11:96-101.
  3. Resin-modified glass ionomer cements: Bonding to enamel and dentin. Dent Mater 1996; 12:161-6.
  4. Effect of coefficient of thermal expansion of microleakage. J Am Dent Assoc 1988; 116:871-4.
  5. Adhesion of dentin and physical properties of a light cured glass ionomer liner / base. J Dent Res 1991; 70(1):72-4.
  6. “Microleakage of resin-modified glass ionomer cement restorations: an in vitro study. Dent Mater 1993; 9(5):306-11.
  7. Moisture susceptibility of resin-modified glass ionomer materials. Quintessence Int 1995; 26(5):351-8.
  8. Occlusal wear of resin-ionomer restorative materials. Aust Dent J 1995; 40(3):171-2.
  9. “Growth inhibition of glass ionomer cements on mutans streptococci. Pediatric Dent Vol 1994; 16(5):346-9.
  10. Artificially formed caries like lesions around restorative materials. J Am Dent Assoc 1989;118:193-7.
  11. Secondary caries formation in vitro around glass ionomer restorations. Quintessence Int 1986; 17(9):527-32.
  12. Clinical performance and caries inhibition of resinmodified glass ionomer cement and amalgam restorations. J Am Dent Assoc 1999; 130:1459-66.
  13. Evaluation of existing methods for cavity preparation in deciduous molars. Bull Tokyo Dent Coll 1992; 33(3):109-24.
  14. Microleakage of composite resins in cavities of upper primary molars. Int J Paed Dent 1999; 9(11):185-94.
  15. The effect of a cavosurface bevel on microleakage in posterior composite restorations. J Prosthet Dent 1988; 59(1):21-4.
  16. Resin Modified and Conventional Glass Ionomer restorations in primary teeth: 8 yr results. J Dentistry 2004;32:285–94.
  17. Clinical pilot study on new dental filling materials and preparation procedures in developing countries. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol 1990; 18(6):309-12.
  18. The marginal seal of various restorative materials in primary molars. J Clin Pediatr Dent 1997; 22(1):51-4.
  19. In vitro microleakage of Glass-ionomer composite resin hybrid materials. Oper Dent 1999; 24(2):89-95.
  20. Adhesive bonding of various material to hard tooth tissues: forces developing in composite materials during hardening. J Am Dent Assoc 1983; 106:475-7.
  21. Operative Dentistry, Modern Theory and Practice. First Indian Ed, Chennai. All India Publishers and Distributors: 1997:34-5.
  22. Cavity designs for composite resins. Oper Dent 1984; 9(2):50-6.
  23. Vitremer restorative cement for children: Three clinicians’ observations in three pediatric dental practices. J Dent Child / ASDC 2000; 67(6):391-8.
  24. Resin-ionomer restorative materials for children: A review. Aust Dent J 1999; 44(1):1-11.
  25. Class II Vitremer restoration of primary molars. J Dent Child / ASDC 1995; 62(1):17-21.
  26. “Light-Hardened Class I glass-ionomer-resin cement restoration of a permanent molar”. Quintessence Int 1993; 24(2):109-13.
  27. Marginal leakage of visible light-cured glass ionomer restorative materials. J Prosthet Dent 1993;69(6):561-3.
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.