Abstract
The aim of this in vivo study was to evaluate the clinical one-year follow-up of a silica- and flouroapatite-reinforced glass carbomer filling material as compared to a resin composite restorative material. In this study, a total of 100 restorations were performed. Caries were removed conventionally with diamond burs. Half of the restorations were restored with nanocomposite resin (TEP) (Tokuyama Estelite, Tokuyama Dental, Japan) and the other half were restored with glass carbomer (GC) material (GCP Dental, The Netherlands). Each restorative material was applied according to the manufacturer's instructions. Restorations were evaluated with modified USPHS criteria at the end of the first week, 6 months, and 12 months. Data were analyzed using Fisher's Exact Chi-Square test, Fisher Freeman Halton Test, and Continuity (Yates) Correction. The Wilcoxon sign test was used for intra-group comparisons of the parameters. When the filling materials were compared with one another, a statistically significant difference was observed in the 12th month on the marginal discoloration. A statistically significant difference was observed between the two materials in the 6th month on the marginal adaptation (p<0.05). In view of these results, there is a need to improve the physical properties of the GC filling material in further in vivo studies.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
