Clinical evaluation of two materials in the restoration of abfraction lesions

Abstract

Aim: To evaluate the clinical performance of a composite resin (CR) and a resin-modified glassionomer cement (RMGIC) for the treatment of abfraction lesions. Methods: Thirty patients with abfraction lesions in at least two premolar teeth were selected and invited to participate in this study. All restorations were made within the same clinical time frame. One tooth was restored with CR Z100 TM (3M, St. Paul, MN, USA), and the other was restored with RMGIC Vitremer TM (3M). The restorations were assessed immediately and 1, 6 and 12 months after the restoration, using modified US Public Health Service (USPHS) criteria: marginal integrity, marginal discoloration, wear, retention, secondary caries and hypersensitivity. The statistical analysis was based on Friedman ANOVA test and Mann-Whitney test, considering p<0.05 for statistical significance. Results: Both materials demonstrated satisfactory clinical performance after one year. In the individual analysis of each material, there was a significant difference (p<0.05) in the criteria marginal integrity and wear, for both CR and RMGIC. RMGIC exhibited more damage one year after the restoration. Comparing both materials, it was found a significant difference only for marginal discoloration, while the RMGIC restorations showed the worst prognosis after a year of evaluation. There was no significant difference in the number of retentions, caries or hypersensitivity between CR and RMGIC. Conclusions: It was concluded that CR exhibited the best clinical performance according to the cost-effectiveness and evaluation criteria used in this study.

Clinical efficacy of bioactive restorative materials in controlling secondary caries: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

“…Some articles did not report the criteria used. [ 14 , 29 , 39 , 43 , 48 , 50 , 53 , 58 , 60 , 66 , 71 , 74 ].…”

“…Regarding the isolation of the operative field, absolute isolation [ 14 , 25 , 26 , 28 , 29 , 35 , 37 – 39 , 48 , 50 , 53 , 58 – 60 , 65 , 71 , 72 , 75 , 79 , 80 , 82 ] or relative isolation [ 27 , 30 , 31 , 34 , 36 , 42 , 43 , 45 – 47 , 49 , 52 , 55 – 57 , 61 , 62 , 66 , 68 – 70 , 76 , 78 , 83 – 85 ] was used, in both the intervention and control materials. The same study showed the use of absolute isolation in one of the evaluated restorative materials and relative isolation in another [ 32 , 33 , 59 , 63 ], whereas some articles did not report the type of isolation used in the clinical study [ 40 , 41 , 44 , 51 , 54 , 64 , 67 , 73 , 74 , 77 , 81 ].…”

Atraumatic Restorative Treatment: More than a Minimally Invasive Approach?

“…On the other hand, the presence of resin among the constituents indicates the potential risk of polymerisation shrinkage that could affect the material adaptation around the cavity walls and margins [51]. Other RMGIC disadvantages include marginal discolouration overtime [52], the increased cost when compared to the conventional GIC in addition to the inability to use RMGIC as an ART sealant when there are no light-cure equipment available [51].…”

Clinical performance of nano-hydroxyapatite-modified glass ionomer cements in class V cavities: split mouth, randomized controlled trial

“…The sample size estimation was calculated using a priori by G* power 3.1.2 software based on the previous studies (Jyothi et al 2011;Medeiros et al 2015). The minimum size of each group was calculated, following these input conditions into software: α (allowable type I error) 0.05 (5%), β (allowable type II error) 0.20 (20%), and power of the study (1-β) = 80%.…”