Clinical Performance of Viscous Glass Ionomer Cement in Posterior Cavities over Two Years

Roland Frankenberger, Franklin Garcia-Godoy, Norbert Krämer, Roland Frankenberger, Franklin Garcia-Godoy, Norbert Krämer

Abstract

In this controlled prospective clinical study the highly viscous glass ionomer cement Ketac Molar was clinically assessed in Class I and Class II cavities. Forty-nine subjects (mean age 32.3 years) received 108 restorations placed by six operators in conventional Black I and II type cavities with undercuts after excavating primary lesions or after removing insufficient restorations. At baseline, and after 6, 12, and 24 months, restorations were assessed by two independent investigators according to modified USPHS codes and criteria. Impressions of the restorations were taken and epoxy replicas were made. Between the baseline and the 24-month recall, 51 representative samples were analyzed at 130 x magnification by use of a stereo light microscope (SLM). Recall rates were 83% after 6 months, 50% after 12 months, and 24% after 24 months. Failure rates after 24 months were 8% for Class I and 40% for Class II fillings, mainly due to bulk fracture at occlusally loaded areas (Kaplan Meier survival analysis). Significant changes over time were found for the criteria "surface roughness", "marginal integrity", "restoration integrity", and "overall judgement" (P < .05; Friedman test). SLM analysis revealed statistically significant differences for the following criteria over time (baseline/6 months/12 months (in % of entire evaluable margin length); P < .05; Friedman 2-way ANOVA): perfect margin 37/19/11, negative step formation 26/49/57, gap formation 2/7/9, and overhang 24/11/8. Replicas exhibited mainly negative step formation as main finding due to apparently inferior wear resistance (P < .05). Gap formations were more frequently observed in Class II restorations than in Class I (12% versus 3% after 12 months; P < .05, Mann-Whitney-U test). The evaluated margin lengths were not statistically different (P > .05, Friedman 2-way ANOVA).

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Kaplan-Meier survival curve.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Ketac Molar restoration at baseline. The occlusal contact area was marked with Occlu-foil.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Ketac Molar restoration after 6 months. Chipping occured in the occlusal-proximal contact area.
Figure 4
Figure 4
Ketac Molar restoration after 12 months. Half of the proximal box was lost.
Figure 5
Figure 5
Epoxy replica of a Ketac Molar filling after 12 months. A distinct crevice is evident.
Figure 6
Figure 6
Magnification of the palatal aspect of Figure 5. No gap was detectable.

References

    1. Wilson AD, Kent BE. A new translucent cement for dentistry. The glass ionomer cement. British Dental Journal. 1972;132(4):133–135.
    1. Burgess JO, Norling BK, Summit JB. Resin ionomer restorative materials—the new generation. In: Hunt PR, editor. Glass Ionomers: The Next Generation. Proceedings of the 2nd International Symposium on Glass Ionomers. Philadelphia, Pa, USA: Colophon; 1994. pp. 75–86.
    1. Mount GJ. Lessons from the past. In: Hunt PR, editor. Glass Ionomers: The Next Generation. Proceedings of the 2nd International Symposium on Glass Ionomers. Philadelphia, Pa, USA: Colophon; 1994. pp. 89–100.
    1. Peez R, Frank S. The physical-mechanical performance of the new Ketac Molar Easymix compared to commercially available glass ionomer restoratives. Journal of Dentistry. 2006;34(8):582–587.
    1. Fleming GJP, Zala DM. An assessment of encapsulated versus hand-mixed glass ionomer restoratives. Operative Dentistry. 2003;28(2):168–177.
    1. Wilder AD, Jr., Boghosian AA, Bayne SC, Heymann HO, Sturdevant JR, Roberson TM. Effect of powder/liquid ratio on the clinical and laboratory performance of resin-modified glass-ionomers. Journal of Dentistry. 1998;26(4):369–377.
    1. Browning WD. The benefits of glass ionomer self-adhesive materials in restorative dentistry. Compendium of Continuing Education in Dentistry. 2006;27(5):308–314.
    1. Tyas MJ. Milestones in adhesion: glass-ionomer cements. Journal of Adhesive Dentistry. 2003;5(4):259–266.
    1. Nicholson JW, Croll TP. Glass-ionomer cements in restorative dentistry. Quintessence International. 1997;28(11):705–714.
    1. Hara AT, Turssi CP, Ando M, et al. Influence of fluoride-releasing restorative material on root dentine secondary caries in situ. Caries Research. 2006;40(5):435–439.
    1. Wiegand A, Buchalla W, Attin T. Review on fluoride-releasing restorative materials—fluoride release and uptake characteristics, antibacterial activity and influence on caries formation. Dental Materials. 2007;23(3):343–362.
    1. Yip HK, Guo J, Wong WHS. Protection offered by root-surface restorative materials against biofilm challenge. Journal of Dental Research. 2007;86(5):431–435.
    1. Hara AT, Turssi CP, Ando M, et al. Influence of fluoride-releasing restorative material on root dentine secondary caries in situ. Caries Research. 2006;40(5):435–439.
    1. Moura JS, Lima EM, Paes Leme AF, Del Bel Cury AA, Tabchoury CPM, Cury JA. Effect of luting cement on dental biofilm composition and secondary caries around metallic restorations in situ. Operative Dentistry. 2004;29(5):509–514.
    1. Manhart J, Chen HY, Hamm G, Hickel R. Buonocore Memorial Lecture. Review of the clinical survival of direct and indirect restorations in posterior teeth of the permanent dentition. Operative Dentistry. 2004;29(5):481–508.
    1. Hickel R, Manhart J. Longevity of restorations in posterior teeth and reasons for failure. Journal of Adhesive Dentistry. 2001;3(1):45–64.
    1. Mount GJ. Buonocore Memorial Lecture. Glass-ionomer cements: past, present and future. Operative Dentistry. 1994;19(3):82–90.
    1. Krämer N, Lohbauer U, Frankenberger R. Restorative materials in the primary dentition of poli-caries patients. European Archives of Paediatric Dentistry. 2007;8(1):29–35.
    1. Chadwick BL, Evans DJ. Restoration of Class II cavities in primary molar teeth with conventional and resin modified glass ionomer cements: a systematic review of the literature. European Archives of Paediatric Dentistry. 2007;8(1):14–21.
    1. Yilmaz Y, Eyuboglu O, Kocogullari ME, Belduz N. A one-year clinical evaluation of a high-viscosity glass ionomer cement in primary molars. Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice. 2006;7(1):71–78.
    1. Hickel R, Kaaden C, Paschos E, Buerkle V, Garcia-Godoy F, Manhart J. Longevity of occlusally-stressed restorations in posterior primary teeth. American Journal of Dentistry. 2005;18(3):198–211.
    1. Smales RJ, Ngo HC, Yip KH-K, Yu C. Clinical effects of glass ionomer restorations on residual carious dentin in primary molars. American Journal of Dentistry. 2005;18(3):188–193.
    1. Krämer N, Frankenberger R. Clinical performance of a condensable metal-reinforced glass ionomer cement in primary molars. British Dental Journal. 2001;190(6):317–321.
    1. Frankenberger R, Sindel J, Krämer N. Viscous glass-ionomer cements: a new alternative to amalgam in the primary dentition? Quintessence International. 1997;28(10):667–676.
    1. Scholtanus JD, Huysmans M-C. Clinical failure of class-II restorations of a highly viscous glass-ionomer material over a 6-year period: a retrospective study. Journal of Dentistry. 2007;35(2):156–162.
    1. Braun AR, Frankenberger R, Krämer N. Clinical performance and margin analysis of ariston pHc versus Solitaire I as posterior restorations after 1 year. Clinical Oral Investigations. 2001;5(3):139–147.
    1. Mhaville RJ, van Amerongen WE, Mandari GJ. Residual caries and marginal integrity in relation to Class II glass ionomer restorations in primary molars. European Archives of Paediatric Dentistry. 2006;7(2):81–84.
    1. Ngo HC, Mount G, Mc Intyre J, Tuisuva J, Von Doussa RJ. Chemical exchange between glass-ionomer restorations and residual carious dentine in permanent molars: an in vivo study. Journal of Dentistry. 2006;34(8):608–613.
    1. Bonecker M, Toi C, Cleaton-Jones P. Mutans streptococci and lactobacilli in carious dentine before and after Atraumatic Restorative Treatment. Journal of Dentistry. 2003;31(6):423–428.
    1. Tyas MJ. Cariostatic effect of glass ionomer cement: a five-year clinical study. Australian Dental Journal. 1991;36(3):236–239.
    1. Antonson SA, Wanuck J, Antonson DE. Surface protection for newly erupting first molars. Compendium of Continuing Education in Dentistry. 2006;27(1):46–52.
    1. Mount GJ. Clinical performance of glass-ionomers. Biomaterials. 1998;19(6):573–579.
    1. Ersin NK, Candan U, Aykut A, Oncag O, Eronat C, Kose T. A clinical evaluation of resin-based composite and glass ionomer cement restorations placed in primary teeth using the ART approach: results at 24 months. Journal of the American Dental Association. 2006;137(11):1529–1536.
    1. Menezes JPDL, Rosenblatt A, Medeiros E. Clinical evaluation of atraumatic restorations in primary molars: a comparison between 2 glass ionomer cements. Journal of Dentistry for Children. 2006;73(2):91–97.
    1. Wang L, Lopes LG, Bresciani E, Lauris JR, Mondelli RF, Navarro MF. Evaluation of Class I ART restorations in Brazilian schoolchildren: three-year results. Special Care in Dentistry. 2004;24(1):28–33.
    1. Yu C, Gao X-J, Deng D-M, Yip H-K, Smales RJ. Survival of glass ionomer restorations placed in primary molars using atraumatic restorative treatment (ART) and conventional cavity preparations: 2-year results. International Dental Journal. 2004;54(1):42–46.
    1. Sjögren P. Cost of composite and glass ionomer Class II molar restorations and theoretical analyses of cost per year of function at Public Dental Services in Sweden. Swedish Dental Journal. 2006;30(3):99–107.
    1. Mount GJ. Longevity in glass-ionomer restorations: review of a successful technique. Quintessence International. 1997;28(10):643–650.
    1. Qvist V, Laurberg L, Poulsen A, Teglers PT. Eight-year study on conventional glass ionomer and amalgam restorations in primary teeth. Acta Odontologica Scandinavica. 2004;62(1):37–45.
    1. Marks LAM, Van Amerongen WE, Borgmeijer PJ, Groen HJ, Martens LC. Ketac molar versus Dyract Class II restorations in primary molars: twelve month clinical results. Journal of Dentistry for Children. 2000;67(1):37–41.
    1. Zanata RL, Navarro MF, Barbosa SH, Lauris JR, Franco EB. Clinical evaluation of three restorative materials applied in a minimal intervention caries treatment approach. Journal of Public Health Dentistry. 2003;63(4):221–226.
    1. Mandari GJ, Frencken JE, van’t Hof MA. Six-year success rates of occlusal amalgam and glass-ionomer restorations placed using three minimal intervention approaches. Caries Research. 2003;37(4):246–253.
    1. Mjör IA. Glass-ionomer cement restorations and secondary caries: a preliminary report. Quintessence International. 1996;27(3):171–174.
    1. Mjör IA, Jokstad A. Five-year study of Class II restorations in permanent teeth using amalgam, glass polyalkenoate (ionomer) cermet and resin-based composite materials. Journal of Dentistry. 1993;21(6):338–343.
    1. Lohbauer U, Frankenberger R, Clare A, Petschelt A, Greil P. Toughening of dental glass ionomer cements with reactive glass fibres. Biomaterials. 2004;25(22):5217–5225.

Source: PubMed

Sponsoren und Mitarbeiter

Krankheiten

Drogeninterventionen

3
Abonnieren