Clinical performance during 48 months of two current glass ionomer restorative systems with coatings: a randomized clinical trial in the field

Thomas Klinke, Amro Daboul, Anita Turek, Roland Frankenberger, Reinhard Hickel, Reiner Biffar, Thomas Klinke, Amro Daboul, Anita Turek, Roland Frankenberger, Reinhard Hickel, Reiner Biffar

Abstract

Background: This study was carried out as a prospective clinical field study with the aim of evaluating the clinical performance of Equia Fil® with a nanofilled resin coating and the conventional Fuji IX GP® fast with an LC coating according to the World Dental Federation (FDI) restoration material evaluation criteria.

Methods: The clinical performance of Equia Fil® and Fuji IX GP® fast was evaluated on permanent posterior teeth of 643 adult patients aged between 20 to 80 years old in randomly selected clinics across Germany. Occlusal cavities in posterior permanent teeth were restored with Equia Fil® with a nanofilled, light-cured resin coating (n = 515) and Fuji IX GP® fast with an LC coating (n = 486). Direct clinical assessment as well as photographic assessment and assessment of stone casts of the restorations were made at 1 year, 2 years, 3 years, and 4 years.

Results: In 4 years, a total of 1001 fillings from both materials were placed by 111 dentists in 643 patients. Random slope models showed that the Equia filling system had overall lower odds of obtaining a delta event (material needs replacement) in comparison to Fuji IX GP® fast with an LC coating within all models. In both materials, filling size/surface was the most important component affecting the clinical performance of the materials. When measuring the odds of obtaining a delta event (material needs replacement), the odds ratios jumped to approximately 43 and 296 times for class II (two surfaces) and class II mesial-occlusal-distal (three surfaces) respectively in comparison to class I fillings.

Conclusion: Both materials showed similar good overall performance in class I cavities; however, when including numbers from both class I and II fillings, the Equia system with a nanofilled resin coating showed better overall performance with fewer failures in all the follow-up intervals. Nonetheless, the percentage of unsatisfactory to poor fillings according to the FDI criteria was relatively high in two-surface class II fillings and higher in three-surface class II fillings for both materials.

Trial registration: Deutsches Register Klinischer Studien (German Clinical Trials Register): DRKS00004220. ( www.germanctr.de ). Registration date: 6 Sept 2012.

Keywords: Dental restoration; Glass ionomer; Multi-center study; Permanent; Practice-based network.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Predicted proportion in a random intercept model adjusted for fillings. Odds of failure for GIC fillings (Fuji IX GP® fast and Equia Fil®) within the manufacturer’s indications
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Predicted proportion in a random intercept model adjusted for patients and filling surface. Odds of failure for class I and class II GIC fillings (Fuji IX GP® fast and Equia Fil®)

References

    1. Kovarik R, Muncy M. Fracture toughness of resin-modified glass ionomers. Am J Dent. 1995;8(3):145–148.
    1. Zoergiebel J, Ilie N. An in vitro study on the maturation of conventional glass ionomer cements and their interface to dentin. Acta Biomater. 2013;9(12):9529–9537. doi: 10.1016/j.actbio.2013.08.010.
    1. Peutzfeldt A, Garcia-Godoy F, Asmussen E. Surface hardness and wear of glass ionomers and compomers. Am J Dent. 1997;10(1):15–17.
    1. Shabanian M, Richards LC. In-vitro wear rates of materials under different loads and varying pH. J Prosthet Dent. 2002;87(6):650–656. doi: 10.1067/mpr.2002.125609.
    1. Forss H, Seppa L, Lappalainen R. In vitro abrasion resistance and hardness of GICs. Dent Mater. 1991;7(1):36–39. doi: 10.1016/0109-5641(91)90024-S.
    1. Momoi Y, Hirosaki K, Kohno A, McCabe J. In vitro toothbrush-dentifrice abrasion of resin-modified glass ionomers. Dent Mater. 1997;13(2):82–88. doi: 10.1016/S0109-5641(97)80016-4.
    1. Scholtanus JD, Huysmans MC. Clinical failure of class-II restorations of a highly viscous glass-ionomer material over a 6-year period: a retrospective study. J Dent. 2007;35:156–162. doi: 10.1016/j.jdent.2006.07.006.
    1. Burke F, Siddons C, Cripps S, Bardha J, et al. Clinical performance of reinforced glass ionomer restorations placed in UK dental practices. Br Dent J. 2007;203:40–41. doi: 10.1038/bdj.2007.529.
    1. Hickel R, Manhart J. Longevity of restorations in posterior teeth and reasons for failure. J Adhes Dent. 2001;3:45–64.
    1. GC Fuji IX and Fuji IX GP fast Manual. .
    1. Miyazaki M, Moore BK, Onose H. Effect of surface coatings on flexural properties of glass ionomers. Eur J Oral Sci. 1996;104(5-6):600–604. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0722.1996.tb00148.x.
    1. de Gee AJ, van Duinen RN, Werner A, Davidson CL. Early and long-term wear of conventional and resin-modified glass ionomers. J Dent Res. 1996;75(8):1613–1619. doi: 10.1177/00220345960750081401.
    1. Xie D, Brantley WA, Culbertson BM, Wang G. Mechanical properties and microstructures of GICs. Dent Mater. 2000;16(2):129–138. doi: 10.1016/S0109-5641(99)00093-7.
    1. Lohbauer U, Kramer N, Siedschlag G, et al. Strength and wear resistance of a dental glass-ionomer cement with a novel nanofilled resin coating. Am J Dent. 2011;24(2):124–128.
    1. Ilie N, Hickel R, Valceanu AS, Huth KC. Fracture toughness of dental restorative materials. Clin Oral Investig. 2012;16:489–498. doi: 10.1007/s00784-011-0525-z.
    1. Hickel R, Kaaden C, Paschos E, et al. Longevity of occlusually-stressed restorations in posterior primary teeth. Am J Dent. 2005;18(3):198–211.
    1. Frankenberger R, Garcia-Godoy F, Kramer N. Clinical performance of viscous glass ionomer cement in posterior cavities over two years. Int J Dent. 2009. Article ID781462.1-7, doi:101155/2009/781462.
    1. Gurgan S, Kutuk Z, Ergin E, et al. Four-year randomized clinical trial to evaluate the clinical performance of a glass ionomer restorative system. Oper Dent. 2015;40(2):134–143. doi: 10.2341/13-239-C.
    1. Friedl K, Hiller KA, Friedl KH. Clinical performance of a new glass ionomer based restoration system: a retrospective cohort study. Dent Mater. 2011;27(10):1031–1037. doi: 10.1016/j.dental.2011.07.004.
    1. Gurgan S, Cakir FY, Firat E, et al. 36-month clinical performance of a glass-ionomer restorative system. J Dent Res. 2013;92 Abstract 2933.
    1. Turkun LS, Kanic O. (2010) Clinical evaluation of new glass ionomer coating combinated systems for 18-months. J Dent Res. 2010;89 (Special Issue B) Abstract 402.
    1. Klinke T, Daboul A, Schwahn C, et al. Dental practitioner recruitment for a randomized clinical trial in the field to evaluate the performance of a new glass ionomer restoration material: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial. Trials. 2016;17:73. doi: 10.1186/s13063-016-1198-3.
    1. Gerlis L. Good clinical practice in clinical research. Lancet. 1989;333(8645):1008–1009. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(89)92642-1.
    1. World Health Organization. Good manufacturing practices for pharmaceutical products: main principles. WHO Expert Committee on Specifications for Pharmaceutical Preparations; 2003. Thirty-seventh report.
    1. Hickel R, Peschke A, Tyas M, Mjör I, et al. FDI World Dental Federation: clinical criteria for the evaluation of direct and indirect restorations—update and clinical examples. Clin Oral Investig. 2010;14(4):349–366. doi: 10.1007/s00784-010-0432-8.
    1. Rabe-Hesketh S, Skrondal A. Multilevel and longitudinal modeling using Stata. Volume II: Categorical responses, counts, and survival. 3rd ed. College Station, TX: Stata Press; 2012.
    1. Mjor I, Wilson N. General dental practice: The missing link in dental research. J Dent Res. 1997;76:820–821. doi: 10.1177/00220345970760040101.
    1. Bafeta A, Dechartres A, Trinquart L, Yavchitz A, Boutron I, et al. Impact of single centre status on estimates of intervention effects in trials with continuous outcomes: meta-epidemiological study. BMJ. 2012;344:e813. doi: 10.1136/bmj.e813.
    1. Burke F, McCord J. Research in general dental practice: problems and solutions. Br Dent J. 1993;175:396–398. doi: 10.1038/sj.bdj.4808335.
    1. Wilson NH, Mjor IA. Practice-based research: importance, challenges and prospects. A personal view. Prim Dent Care. 1997;4:5–6.
    1. Lohbauer U, Petschelt A. Influence of a nanofilled coating on physical properties of glass ionomer cements. J Dent Res. 2012;91:1048.
    1. Krämer N, Lohbauer U, Frankenberger R. Restorative materials in the primary dentition of poli-caries patients. Eur Arch Paediatr Dent. 2007;8(1):29–35. doi: 10.1007/BF03262567.

Source: PubMed

Sponsorzy i współpracownicy

Warunki medyczne

Interwencje lekowe

3
Subskrybuj