Clinical performance of aesthetic restorative materials in primary teeth according to the FDI criteria.

AIM: The purpose of this study is to evaluate the clinical performance of three different restorative materials in primary teeth according to the FDI criteria. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Resin-modified glass ionomer cement, compomer and composite resin restorations (n=93) were made in 31 patients. The restorations were clinically evaluated at baseline, 6th, 12th and 18th month with the FDI criteria. RESULTS: The cumulative survival rate after 18 months was found to be 90.3% for resin modified glass ionomer cement restorations, 100% for compomer restorations and 80.6% for composite resin restorations. Statistically significant increase in surface roughness, colour mismatch, anatomic form loss and marginal deterioration were detected in resin- modified glass ionomer group (p<0.05). The most frequent reason for restoration failure in composite resin group was restoration fractures. CONCLUSIONS: The resin-modified glass ionomer restorations necessitates close follow-up because of the risk of increase in surface roughness, changes in colour and loss in anatomic form and marginal adaptation. The clinical performance of compomer restorations is superior to resin-modified glass ionomer and composite resin restorations in primary teeth.

Comparison of conventional versus colored compomers for class II restorations in primary molars: a 12-month clinical study.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the 12-month clinical performance of conventional (Compoglass F) and colored (Twinky Star) compomer restorative materials in class II restorations of primary molars. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 196 restorations were placed in 98 children aged between 5 and 10 years (mean age: 7.43 +/- 1.31 years) who had bilateral matched pairs of carious posterior class II primary molars. A split-mouth design was used in which 2 materials (Compoglass F, Twinky Star) were randomly placed on contralateral sides by 3 dentists. At baseline, after 6 and after 12 months, the restorations were evaluated using modified US Public Health Service criteria for: secondary caries, marginal integrity, marginal discoloration, anatomic form and surface texture. The Alpha and Bravo scores were considered as clinical success. The data were subjected to statistical analysis by the Wilcoxon and McNemar tests (p < 0.05). The Kaplan-Meier survival method was applied to estimate survival percentages. RESULTS: No significant difference was found among the groups at all recalls regarding marginal integrity, marginal discoloration, anatomic form, secondary caries and surface texture. The 12-month mean cumulative survival rate of Compoglass F was 95.7%, while in the Twinky Star group, the survival rate was 93% in class II restorations with no significant difference between the groups for either material. CONCLUSION: Both conventional and colored compomer materials are suitable restorative materials for primary teeth for at least 12 months. Colored compomers could also be a good alternative to tooth-colored compomers in the restoration of primary molars.

Avaliação de propriedades mecânicas e liberação de flúor de dois ionômeros de vidro e de um compômero / Evaluation of mechanical properties and fluoride release of two glass ionomers and a compomer

Este estudo avaliou a rugosidade superficial, a resistências à compressão e à tração e a liberação de flúor de dois cimentos de ionômero de vidro híbridos e de um compômero. Os corpos de prova foram confeccionados de acordo com as especificações de cada ensaio e de cada fabricante. Os autores concluíram que os cimentos de ionômero de vidro híbridos testados possuem as propriedades mecânicas avaliadas semelhantes entre si e inferiores ao compômero testado. Este apresentou a menor liberação de flúor. Não houve diferença estatisticamente significativa entre os ionômeros

Finite element analysis of strength characteristics of various resin based restorative materials in Class V cavities.

This study investigated the strength characteristics of various composites (Tetric Ceram, Tetric Flow, Prisma AP.H, Synergy Duo Shade, Synergy Compact, and Z 100) and compomers (Compoglass, Compoglass F, Dyract AP, F 2000) that were applied in a Class V cavity of a maxillary central incisor. The study was conducted by using a 3-dimensional finite element approach and in the study ansys package program was used. The tooth model had 294 elements and 420 nodes. The teeth considered were assumed to be subjected to an incisal load of 200 N acting at an angle of 26 degrees with the longitudinal axis of the tooth but the effects of different loading angles and different loads were also analysed. Hence, the loads of 100 and 400 N and the loading angles of 0 degrees representing bruxism and 90 degrees representing a traumatic load were also taken into consideration. The effects of the cavity preparation size were also studied. It was determined that any increase in the loading angle and/or the amount of the load resulted in a proportional increase in the stresses developed in the tooth. Furthermore it was also verified that, as a cavity weakens the tooth structure by creating a discontinuity in an intact tooth, the larger sized cavity preparations inevitably cause larger stresses to be developed in the tooth. Strictly from the mechanical point of view, the stresses developed in the restored teeth were determined to be inversely proportional with the modulus of elasticity of the restorative materials. Therefore within the scope of the study Z 100 was found to be superior to the other materials concerned.

One-year retrospective clinical evaluation of hybrid composite restorations placed in United Kingdom general practices.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to assess Pertac II restorations placed in general dental practice. METHOD AND MATERIALS: A total of 86 restorations (14 Class I, 10 Class II, 17 Class III, 5 Class IV, and 40 Class V) using a hybrid composite material (Pertac II) placed in 56 patients (mean age, 39 years) in 5 dental practices in the United Kingdom were assessed after 1 year by a trained evaluator and the dental practitioner who had placed the restoration. All the restorations were assessed for anatomic form, marginal adaptation, surface roughness, sensitivity or discomfort, gingival condition, and the presence or absence of secondary caries. RESULTS: Thirty-five (43%) restorations were placed in load-bearing situations, 9% of which were assessed as being in "heavy" occlusion. Five (6%) of the restorations were lost (all Class V restorations), 4 from premolars and 1 from a molar. Four were in wedge-shaped cavities and 1 small restoration was actually dislodged during examination. The remaining 81 (94%) restorations were found to be intact, with no secondary caries detected. A high percentage of optimal scores were recorded for both anatomic form and surface roughness. CONCLUSION: It is concluded that the evaluation demonstrated satisfactory clinical performance of Pertac II restorations after 1 year of clinical service in the wide variety of clinical situations seen in general dental practice. However, the potential for failure of hybrid composite materials in Class V situations appears high. It may be argued that clinicians who wish to use a resin-based material in a Class V situation should use a compomer or microfilled composite.