Management of severity lesions of hypomineralized molars (MIH) with different treatment alternatives: 9-month results of a clinical trial.

The aim of this study was to evaluate the 9-month clinical performance of different materials and treatment procedures in teeth with MIH in children, and to evaluate the effectiveness of Papacarie gel as a deproteinization agent. The study included 90 children (aged 8-15) who had 189 first permanent molars with MIH were restored randomly with 4 different materials/methods. Equia Forte HT (GC, Tokyo, Japan) was used in Group 1; In Group 2, G-eanial composite (GC, Tokyo, Japan) was used with a Fuji IX (GC, Tokyo, Japan) base; In Group 3 and Group 4, EverX Posterior (GC, Tokyo, Japan) base and G-eanial composite (GC, Tokyo, Japan) were used. In group 4, deproteinization was performed with Papacarie Duo gel (F&A, Sao Paulo, Brazil). The restorations were evaluated at 3-month intervals for 9 months using modified United States Public Health Service (USPHS) criteria. The overall recall rate was 94.1% for every 3-month clinical evaluation over 9 months. A total of 9 restorations were unsuccessful. Surface roughness of Group 1 was statistically different from all other groups in all control periods (p < 0.05). Marginal adaptation of Group 2 was found to be significantly different from Groups 3 and 4 at the both of 6th and 9th month controls. There was no significant difference between the groups in terms of retention, color match, marginal discoloration and secondary caries in all control months. Restoration of MIH with Equia Forte HT is almost as successful as composites. The use of dentin replacement materials instead of glass ionomer cements as a base in composite restorations shows better results. Papacarie deproteinization showed similar success with other composite groups. This study was the first clinical study in which Papacarie was used for deproteinization in teeth with MIH and will thus contribute to the literature.

Clinical comparison of high-viscosity glass-hybrid systems with a sculptable bulk-fill composite resin in different cavity types.

OBJECTIVE: This randomized, double-blind clinical investigation assessed the performance of two high-viscosity glass-ionomer systems and a bulk-fill composite in different cavity types. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In 146 participants, 360 (class I, II, and V) cavities were restored using three different materials (Equia Forte HT, Chemfill Rock, and SonicFill 2) with equal allocation. Using modified World Dental Federation criteria, restorations were assessed after 1 week, 6 months, and 18 months by an experienced examiner. Statistical analysis was conducted using Fisher's exact and Wilcoxon signed rank tests (α = 0.05). RESULTS: After 18 months, 267 restorations were assessed in 116 participants. After 18 months, 5 Equia Forte HT restorations failed due to debonding and fracture. Only one loss was observed in the Chemfill Rock restorations. Equia Forte HT exhibited significantly lower retention than SonicFill 2 after 18 months (p = 0.019), irrespective of cavity type. At 1 week, 3 Class I restorations with SF showed postoperative sensitivity. The type of cavity did not affect the performance of the restorative materials used (p > 0.05). CONCLUSION: Equia Forte HT and Chemfill Rock presented similar clinical performance regardless of color match. Equia Forte HT showed a lower performance compared to SonicFill 2. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Glass-hybrid materials presented a lower performance in terms of color match or retention when compared to a sculptable bulk-fill composite resin.

Evaluation of the shear bond strength of a tricalcium silicate-based material to four self-adhering glass ionomer materials: an in vitro study.

Background: This study aimed to evaluate and compare the shear bond strength (SBS) of EQUIA Forte HT with that of other restorative materials, including EQUIA Forte, glass ionomer cement (GIC), and resin-modified glass ionomer cement (RMGIC) when bonded to NeoMTA 2. Materials and methods: A total of 120 holes were created in Teflon molds and filled with NeoMTA 2. The restorative materials were immediately applied using customized silicone molds. The samples were randomly divided into two main groups: one to measure the immediate SBS and the other to measure the delayed SBS. These two main groups were further divided into four subgroups based on the restorative material used: EQUIA Forte HT, EQUIA Forte, GIC, and RMGIC. Results: The study groups showed statistically significant differences in the mean SBS (p < 0.0001). The immediate SBS of the RMGIC group (mean ± SD: 5.43 ± 1.22) was significantly higher than those of the GIC and EQUIA Forte groups, with no significant difference found compared to the SBS of EQUIA Forte HT. In the delayed SBS, both the RMGIC and EQUIA Forte HT groups (4.98 ± 0.67 and 4.93 ± 0.60, respectively) demonstrated significantly higher bond strengths than the GIC and EQUIA Forte groups (3.81 ± 0.57 and 4.2 ± 0.63, respectively). However, there were no statistically significant differences between the RMGIC and EQUIA Forte HT groups or between the GIC and EQUIA Forte groups. Conclusion: Based on our findings, EQUIA Forte HT has shown promising outcomes when used as a restorative material following pulpotomies, with results comparable to those of RMGIC.