• Users Online: 207
  • Home
  • Print this page
  • Email this page
Home About us Editorial board Ahead of print Current issue Search Archives Submit article Instructions Subscribe Contacts Login 
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Year : 2021  |  Volume : 18  |  Issue : 2  |  Page : 49-59

Clinical evaluation of two glass ionomer restorative materials in class I cavities


1 Department of Restorative Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, Tanta University, Tanta, Egypt
2 Department of Restorative Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, Suez Canal University, Suez Canal, Egypt

Correspondence Address:
Mohamed R Naanosh
BDS, Department of Restorative Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, Suez Canal University, Suez Canal, 31718
Egypt
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/tdj.tdj_26_20

Rights and Permissions

Aim To evaluate the clinical performance of two glass ionomer restorative materials (EQUIA Forte Fil and IonoStar Molar) and a nanohybrid composite (Tetric EvoCeram) in class I cavities over 1 year. Patients and methods Twenty patients of age 25–40 years received 60 restorations. Each patient received three different restorations representing the tested materials. Class I cavity was prepared according to the caries extension. All the materials were applied following the manufacturer's instructions. Finishing and polishing was performed using finishing burs and polishing discs. Each restoration was evaluated clinically at baseline (24 h), 6 months and after 1 year using modified USPHS. Results The recall rate was 100% after 1 year. The alpha rating for retention and restoration fracture for EQUIA Forte Fil were 95%, IonoStar Molar 85%, Tetric EvoCeram 100% alpha ratings. For marginal discoloration for EQUIA Forte Fil were 95%, IonoStar Molar 80%, Tetric EvoCeram 95% alpha ratings. For marginal adaptation for EQUIA Forte Fil were 90%, IonoStar Molar 80%, Tetric EvoCeram 90% alpha ratings. For anatomic form for EQUIA Forte Fil 95%, IonoStar Molar 75%, Tetric EvoCeram 95% alpha ratings. For color match for EQUIA Forte Fil 85%, IonoStar Molar 80%, Tetric EvoCeram 90% alpha ratings. For surface texture for EQUIA Forte Fil 85%, IonoStar Molar 90%, Tetric EvoCeram 95% alpha ratings. For secondary caries for EQUIA Forte Fil 95%, IonoStar Molar 85%, Tetric EvoCeram 100% alpha ratings. Using χ2 test, there was no statistically significant difference between the tested groups for marginal discoloration, marginal adaptation, anatomic form, color match, and surface texture (P<0.05). Conclusion EQUIA Forte Fil Glass ionomer achieved clinically superior results after 1 year of service. IonoStar Molar Glass ionomer also achieved acceptable results. Tetric EvoCeram composite achieved superior clinical results for all criteria of the evaluation. A longer evaluation period may be recommended to decide the use of these materials safely in class I cavities.


[FULL TEXT] [PDF]*
Print this article     Email this article
 Next article
 Previous article
 Table of Contents

 Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
 Citation Manager
 Access Statistics
 Reader Comments
 Email Alert *
 Add to My List *
 * Requires registration (Free)
 

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed149    
    Printed0    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded26    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal