Search

The aim of this clinical report is to present a possible alternative treatment, with 24-month follow-up, for restoring tooth loss due to extensive erosive tooth wear. A 21-year-old male patient, complaining of intense sensitivity in the maxillary posterior teeth, and presenting severe wear on maxillary premolar and molar teeth due to gastroesophageal reflux, sought care in the university clinics. The planned treatment was to refer for medical treatment and perform restorations with the high-viscosity glass ionomer cement Equia Forte (GC Corporation, Tokyo, Japan), aiming to restore the dental anatomy and to consequently decrease the pain symptomatology. A silicone guide, obtained from a diagnostic waxing, was used during the restorative approach considering the patient's occlusion. After all the clinical steps of the restorative technique, an occlusal adjustment of restorations was performed. During monthly recalls up to 24 months, the treatment was stable and in service. In addition, the patient reported no pain and improved chewing, leading to a better quality of life., (©Operative Dentistry, 2022.)

Objective: The aim of this paper is to present the results of a consensus meeting on the threshold property requirements for the clinical use of conventional glass-ionomer cements (GICs) for restorative indications., Methods: Twenty-one experts on GICs evaluated the results of tests on mechanical and optical properties of 18 different brands of restorative GICs: Bioglass R [B], Chemfil Rock [CR], Equia Forte [EF], Gold Label 2 [GL2], Gold Label 9 [GL9], Glass Ionomer Cement II [GI], Ionglass [IG], Ion Z [IZ], Ionomaster [IM], Ionofil Plus [IP], Ionostar Plus [IS], Ketac Molar Easymix [KM], Magic Glass [MG], Maxxion R [MA], Riva Self Cure [R], Vidrion R [V], Vitro Fil [VF] and Vitro Molar [VM]. All experiments were carried out by a team of researchers from Brazil and England following strict protocols, under the same laboratory conditions throughout, and maintaining data integrity., Results: There was consensus on: determining as primary properties of the material: compressive strength, microhardness, acid erosion and fluoride release, and as secondary properties: contrast ratio and translucency parameter, in order to rank the materials. Seven brands were below the thresholds for restorative indications: IZ, IM, IG, MA, VF, B and MG., Conclusions: Based on the primary properties adopted as being essential for restorative indications, the conventional restorative GICs that met the thresholds and could be considered suitable as long-term restorative materials were: EF, GI, GL9, KM, IP, GL2, IS, CR, V, VM and R. A decision-making process to select the best GIC must also include results from clinical trials., Clinical Significance: This study provides a ranking of GICs that could be considered suitable as long-term restorative materials based on their main properties., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Objective: To compare the effectiveness of ART restorations using High Viscosity Glass-ionomer cement (HVGIC) with conventional restorations using resin composite in Class II cavities of permanent teeth, in a 2-year follow-up., Methodology: Seventy-seven restorations were made with each restorative material, Equia Fil-GC Corporation (ART restorations) and Z350-3M (conventional restoration), in 54 participants in this parallel and randomized clinical trial. Restorations were evaluated at 6 months, 1 and 2 years using the ART and the modified United States Public Health Service (USPHS) criteria. Chi-square test and Survival Analysis (p<0.05) were used for statistical analysis., Results: The success rates for ART restorations were 98.7% (6 months) and 95.8% (1 year) for both criteria. At 2 years, success rate was 92% and 90.3% when scored by the modified USPHS and ART criteria (p=0.466), respectively. The success rates for conventional restorations were 100% (6 months), 98.7% (1 year) and 91.5% (2 years) for both assessment criteria. ART restorations presented a lower survival rate by the criterion of ART (83.7%) when compared to the modified USPHS criterion of (87.8%), after 2 years (p=0.051). The survival of conventional restorations was 90.7% for both evaluation criteria., Conclusion: At the 2-years follow-up evaluation, no statistically significant difference was observed between the success rate of ART restorations with HVGIC compared to conventional restorations with resin composite in Class II cavities of permanent teeth.

The aim of this study was to evaluate the color stability of light-cured and dual-cured resin cements after artificial accelerated aging. Ten specimens (6-mm diameter and 2-mm thickness) for each of five resin cements were prepared: GC (dual-cured cement, GCem), Vb (light-cured cement, Variolink II only the base), Vbc (dual-cured cement, Variolink II base with catalyst), VV (light-cured cement, Variolink Veneer), and FR (flowable resin composite, light cured). The samples were polished and stored in an accelerated artificial aging machine for 308 hours (160 klx), with cycles of 120 minutes under light and 60 minutes in the dark. All aging was carried out in distilled water at 37°C and light irradiation at 765 W/m 2 . The samples were evaluated in a spectrophotometer before and after aging, and results were calculated according to CIEDE2000. The data were statistically analyzed (one-way analysis of variance and Tukey test, 95% confidence). The results of ΔE 00 were statistically significant for the type of cement ( p <0.001), with differences among tested groups. Variolink II (base only and base + catalyst) and the flowable resin were the cements with the lowest color variations after the artificial accelerated aging. Considering the values ΔE 00 of acceptability and perceptibility, none of the tested cements showed acceptable values.

Purpose: To investigate in vitro the effect of retentive grooves, GIC type and insertion method on the fracture resistance of Class II glass-ionomer cement (GIC) restorations., Methods: Premolars were divided into 12 groups (n = 10) according to three variables: retentive grooves [presence (PR) or absence AR)], GICs type [Ketac-Molar (KM), Fuji VIII (F8) and RelyX Luting (RX)], and insertion method [syringe injector (SI) or spoon excavator (SE)]. The specimens were subjected to fracture resistance test. Data were submitted to three-way ANOVA and multiple comparisons were performed using a Tukey test (P < 0.05)., Results: Mean fracture resistance values (Kgf) +/- standard deviations (SD) were: KM (PR+SI) = 65.66 +/- 2.5; KM (PR+SE) = 62.58 +/- 2.1; KM (AR+SI) = 57.11 +/- 1.9; KM (AR+SE) = 51.94 +/- 2.3; F8 (PR+SI) = 63.05 +/- 2.1; F8 (PR+SE) = 60.12 +/- 2.3; F8 (AR+SI) = 55.11 +/- 1.9; F8(AR+SE) = 49.20 +/- 1.6; RX (PR+SI) = 50.99 +/- 2.4; RX (PR+SE) = 48.81 +/- 2.5; RX (AR+SI) = 45.53 +/- 2.6; RX (AR+SE) = 41.88 +/- 3.0. Statistically significant differences were observed among all the groups tested (P = 0.001). There was significant difference when pooled means for GIC type were compared with retentive grooves (P = 0.01) and when pooled means for retentive grooves were compared with insertion method (P = 0.01).

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the clinical performance of glass ionomer cement (GIC) restorations comparing two minimally invasive methods in permanent teeth after 12 months. Fifty pregnant women (second trimester of pregnancy), mean age 22 +/- 5.30 years, were treated by two previously trained operators. The treatment approaches tested were: chemomechanical method (Carisolv; MediTeam) and atraumatic restorative treatment (ART). A split-mouth study design was used in which the two treatments were randomly placed in 50 matched pairs of permanent teeth. The chemomechanical method (CM) was the test group and the ART was the control group. The treatments were performed in Public Health Centers. The tested restorative material was a high-strength GIC (Ketac Molar; 3M/ESPE). The restorations were placed according to the ART guidelines. Two calibrated independent examiners evaluated the restorations in accordance with ART criteria. The inter-examiner kappa was 0.97. Data were analyzed using 95% confidence interval on the binomial distribution and Fisher's exact test at 5% significance level. In a 12-month follow-up, 86% of the restorations were evaluated. In the test group (CM), 100% (CI=93.3-100%) of the restorations were considered successful. In the control group (ART) 97.6% (CI=87.4-99.9%) of the restorations were considered successful and 2.4% unsuccessful (marginal defect >0.5 mm). There was no statistically significant difference between the 12-month success rate for both groups (Fisher's exact test: P=0.49) and between the two operators (Fisher's exact test: P=1.00). Both minimally invasive methods, chemomechanical method and ART, showed a similar clinical performance after 12 months of follow up.

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the performance of multiple-surface restorations employing 2 different glass ionomer cements (GICs) and the Atraumatic Restorative Treatment (ART) approach in permanent molar teeth., Methods: This study examined 60 restorations--36 Class I restorations involving 2 or more tooth surfaces and 24 Class II restorations--that were placed in 46 schoolchildren (9-16 years of age) by 2 dentists using the ART approach. The restorations were randomly divided into 2 groups: (a) 30 cavities were filled with high strength GIC (Ketac Molar-3M ESPE), and (b) 30 cavities were filled with resin-modified GIC (Fuji VIII-GC Corp). Two independent calibrated examiners carried out the evaluations according to ART criteria. The interexaminer kappa was 0.92. Data were submitted to chi-square, McNemar, and Fisher's tests. A difference was statistically significant if P<.05., Results: In a 12-month follow-up, 59 restorations were evaluated. The success rates of the restorations were 100% and 93% for Fuji VIII and Ketac Molar, respectively. There was no statistically significant difference between GICs, cavity types, or operators., Conclusions: Based on a 12-month follow-up evaluation, the clinical performance of the multiple-surface atraumatic restorative treatment restorations of both glass ionomer cements (high-strength and resin-modified) was considered satisfactory with a high success rate.

Purpose: The aim of this study was to evaluate the influence of ultrasonic treatment on the bond strength of glass-ionomer cements to dentin., Materials and Methods: Conventional (Fuji II: a; Ketac-Fil Plus: b), resin-modified (Fuji II LC Improved: c; Photac-Fil Quick Aplicap: d), and more viscous conventional (Ketac Molar: e) glass-ionomer cements were tested. Fifty human molars were sectioned mesiodistally, embedded in epoxy resin with exposed buccal or lingual surfaces, and ground to obtain a flat dentin surface. A matrix with a central orifice in the shape of an inverted truncated cone was built with a bovine tooth and positioned on the dentin surface. In the control groups, the materials were inserted into the matrix. In the test groups, the ultrasonic treatment was applied to the surface of the matrix and the surface of the glass-ionomer cements. The specimens were stored in deionized water for 24 h at 37 degrees C and subjected to bond strength tests. Data were analyzed using two-way ANOVA and Tukey's tests., Results: The mean bond strengths in MPa for the control groups were: a: 2.21, b: 1.85, c: 8.65, d: 5.93, and e: 2.10. The results for the test groups were: a: 3.33, b: 2.19, c: 9.95, d: 6.10, and e: 2.65. Ultrasonic treatment statistically increased the tensile bond strength of all tested cements (p < 0.05)., Conclusion: Ultrasonic treatment improved the bond strength of the glass-ionomer cements to dentin after 24 h.