Restorative Materials In Class Research Articles

Marginal Leakage Evaluation of Bioactive Bulkfill Restorative Materials in Class II Cavities: An In Vitro Comparative Study

Marginal Leakage Evaluation of Bioactive Bulkfill Restorative Materials in Class II Cavities: An In Vitro Comparative Study

To Compare and Evaluate the Microleakage of Four Different Tooth Coloured Restorative Materials in Class V Cavities: A Stereomicroscopic Study

To Compare and Evaluate the Microleakage of Four Different Tooth Coloured Restorative Materials in Class V Cavities: A Stereomicroscopic Study

Comparative evaluation of flexural strength, modulus of elasticity, and microleakage of three different glass ionomer restorative materials in Class V preparations – An In vitro study

Comparative evaluation of flexural strength, modulus of elasticity, and microleakage of three different glass ionomer restorative materials in Class V preparations – An In vitro study

Choice of restorative materials by dentists in Class III dental caries in primary maxillary lateral incisors in 3-6-year-old children: A retrospective study.

Early childhood caries has an intricate etiology and it requires a helpless tooth surface, fermentable starches, and cariogenic microorganisms throughout some undefined time frame to start the carious cycle. Tooth-hued materials gained popularity in recent years for reestablishing primary and youthful blended dentitions. Hence, the main aim of this study was to investigate the choice of restorative materials in Class III dental caries in primary maxillary lateral incisors in 3-6-year-old children. Data collected from the records of the children 3-6 years of age for the choice of restorative materials of primary maxillary lateral incisors between September 2020 and February 2021 were included in the study. Retrospective study data were collected through the software DIAS and data analysis was carried out using Chi-square tests. Variation in the percentage of children who underwent restoration utilizing strip crowns was the highest within 3-4 years (38.26%) when compared to light composite restorations (LCR) (14.9%), whereas the least preferred restoration was glass-ionomer cement (5.37%) which was noted statistically significant. Considering the age group of 5-6 years preferred form of restoration was LCR (19.80%) when compared to strip crown (17.79%), whereas 4.70% of the treatment cases were utilized for glass-ionomer cement restorations. Strip crowns are a more predominantly used choice of restorative material in Class III dental caries in primary maxillary lateral incisors in between 3- and 6-year-old children.

Microleakage of Different Restorative Materials in Class V Restorations: In-Vitro Study

Microleakage of Different Restorative Materials in Class V Restorations: In-Vitro Study

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

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 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.

Clinical performance of Equia Forte: A glass hybrid GIC versus Tetric N Ceram; a bulk fill composite in class II carious primary molars: A 12 month split mouth clinical trial

The present study aims to clinically evaluate the performance of a glass hybrid glass ionomer cement (GIC), Equia forte (GC India) and a bulk fill composite, Tetric N Ceram (Ivoclar Vivadent) in restoration of class II carious lesions in primary molars for a period of 12 months. A total of 39 patients of 5-9 years with occlusoproximal carious lesion on primary maxillary or mandibular molars were selected and randomly allotted into two groups i.e Group A (Equia Forte) and Group B (Tetric N Ceram). A total of 78 restorations (39 teeth for each group) was placed using Equia Forte and Tetric N Ceram using a split mouth design and were evaluated for a period of 12 months at regular time intervals using FDI criteria by two blinded examiners for esthetic, functional and biological properties. The data were analyzed using one way ANOVA for intragroup comparison and student t test for intergroup comparison. There was no statistically significant difference seen at baseline, 3, 6, 9 and 12 months for esthetic, functional and biological properties within the group. On inter group comparison, there was no statistically significant result observed except for functional property at 6 months with a p value of 0.02. The current study suggests that both Equia Forte and Tetric N Ceram can be a choice of restorative material in class II carious lesions in primary molars.

A Two-year Clinical Comparison of Three Different Restorative Materials in Class II Cavities.

The aim of this clinical study was to evaluate the clinical performance of Class II restorations of a high-viscosity glass ionomer material, of a bulk-fill composite resin, and of a microhybrid composite resin. One hundred nine Class II restorations were performed in 54 patients using three different restorative materials: Charisma Smart Composite (CSC; a conventional composite resin), Filtek Bulk Fill Posterior Restorative (FBF; a high-viscosity bulk-fill composite), and Equia Forte Fil (EF; a high-viscosity glass ionomer). Single Bond Universal adhesive (3M ESPE, Neuss, Germany) was used for both conventional and bulk-fill composite resin restorations. The restorations were evaluated using modified US Public Health Service criteria in terms of retention, color match, marginal discoloration, anatomic form, contact point, marginal adaptation, secondary caries, postoperative sensitivity, and surface texture. The data were analyzed using the chi-square, Fisher, and McNemar tests. Eighty-four restorations were evaluated at two-year recalls. There were clinically acceptable changes in composite resin restorations (FBF and CSC). In addition, no statistically significant difference was observed between the clinical performances of these materials in terms of all criteria (p>0.05). However, there was a statistically significant difference between the EF group and the FBF and CSC groups in all parameters except for marginal discoloration, secondary caries, and postoperative sensitivity (p<0.05). The tested bulk-fill and conventional composite resins showed acceptable clinical performance in Class II cavities. However, if EF is to be used for Class II restoration, its use should be carefully considered.

A randomized controlled 10 years follow up of a glass ionomer restorative material in class I and class II cavities

ObjectiveTo evaluate the durability of a glass ionomer restorative material in Class I and Class II cavities during 10 years compared with a micro filled composite resin. MethodsFifty-nine participants (mean age 24 years) received 140 (80 Class I and 60 Class II) glass ionomer (GI) or composite resin (CR) restorations. Evaluation was performed with slightly modified USPHS criteria at baseline, and yearly during the 10 years. Data were analyzed with Cohran's Q and McNemar's tests. ResultsFifty-one patients and 124 restorations (61 GI / 38 Class I - 23 Class II, 63 CR / 38 Class I, 25 Class II) were evaluated after 10 years. The recall rate was 86.4%. The overall clinical recall rate of restorations was 88.6%. The success rate of Class I and II restorations were calculated as 100% for both materials. The cumulative failure rate (CRF) of all Cl I and Cl II GI restorations was 3.17% in total, but CFR was 8 % for Cl II GI restorations. A significant difference was observed between the marginal discoloration scores of restorations at 10 years (p = 0.022). No significant difference was seen between two restorative materials in terms of marginal adaptation (p > 0.05). A significant change was seen in color match of GI restorations at 10 years (p < 0.05). No significant change was found for the anatomical form, secondary caries, postoperative sensitivity, surface texture, and retention for either restorative material (p > 0.05). ConclusionsBoth tested restorative materials showed an acceptable success rate in the restoration of Class I and Class II cavities during the 10-year follow up.

In vitro evaluation of microleakage in primary teeth restored with three adhesive materials: ACTIVA™, composite resin, and resin-modified glass ionomer.

Microleakage is one of the most important problems that can adversely affect the longevity of dental restorations. The aim of this in vitro study is to assess microleakage of a new BioActive-Restorative composite (ACTIVA™, Pulpdent, USA), in comparison to standard adhesive materials used in restoring class II cavities in primary teeth. One hundred and four extracted human primary molars were randomly allocated into three groups. In each group, class II cavities were prepared and restored with one of the three restorative materials: ACTIVA, Filtek Z250, or Vitremer. Microleakage was assessed using dye penetration method under a stereomicroscope. Chi-square test was used followed by pairwise comparisons to assess the association between microleakage and the materials used. A significance level of 0.05 was assumed throughout the study. According to leakage analysis per tooth, there were no statistically significant differences in microleakage percentages between ACTIVA and both Filtek Z250 and Vitremer. Leakage analysis per surfaces showed significantly higher leakage percentages in ACTIVA compared to Filtek Z250 at both occlusal and cervical margins and lower than Vitremer at occlusal margin. ACTIVA can be a potential restorative material in class II cavities in primary molars; clinical studies are recommended.

Microleakage Evaluation of an Alkasite Restorative Material: An In Vitro Dye Penetration Study

The aim of the present in vitro study was to comparatively evaluate the microleakage in three different esthetic restorative materials in class I cavities using the dye penetration technique. Class I cavities were prepared on 24 human maxillary premolar teeth. The teeth were randomly divided into four groups of six samples each. Group I: Cention-N without adhesive (Ivoclar Vivadent, India), group II: Cention with adhesive (Ivoclar Vivadent, India), group III: type IX glass ionomer cement (Fuji), group IV: posterior composite (3M ESPE). The specimens were polished, subjected to thermocycling, and suspended in methylene blue dye for 24 hours. The teeth were sectioned longitudinally and the extent of microleakage was evaluated using the stereomicroscope. The results were subjected to statistical analysis using the Pearson's Chi-square test and the interobserver variability was assessed by the Kappa test for interobserver variability. The analysis showed statistically significant results among the groups. Although, Cention N with adhesive showed the least microleakage followed by Cention N without adhesive. All the materials tested were unable to completely eliminate microleakage in class I cavities. However, the newer alkasite material Cention N proved to have the least microleakage among all groups. According to the present study, Cention N, a newer alkasite restorative material, demonstrated promising results with the least microleakage in comparison with posterior resin composites and glass ionomer cements. How to cite this article: Kini A, Shetty S, Bhat R, et al. Microleakage Evaluation of an Alkasite Restorative Material: An In Vitro Dye Penetration Study. J Contemp Dent Pract 2019;20(11):1315-1318.

Marginal and internal adaptation of bulk fill-Composites

This study evaluated restorative systems for marginal and internal adaptation of the restorative material in class I restorations. These restorative systems comprise the restorative material and its adhesive system, five of which are resin-based materials of the type "Bulk fill" which are indicated for single increment application (Tetric EvoCeram Bulk Fill / Ivoclar Vivadent; Opus Bulk Fill / FGM, Fill-Up! / Coltene; Equia Forte Fill / GC Corp. and Activa BioActive Restorative / Pulpdent) and a composite resin of traditional incremental application (Filtek Z350 XT / 3M ESPE) (control group). The results were tabulated and submitted to statistical analysis for comparison between the experimental groups.

Clinical Assessment and Microleakage Evaluation of Three Esthetic Restorative Materials in Class II in Primary Molars

Aim : This study aimed to assess the clinical performance and to evaluate in-vitro microleakagein class II in mandibular second primary molars restored with three esthetic restorative materials.Materials and Methods: In the clinical part of the study, sixty second mandibular molarsindicated for class II preparation were divided into three equal groups. Molars were restored withthree esthetic restorative materials according to manufacturer instructions as follows: group (1)Compomer (Dyract), group (2) Giomer (Beautifil) and group (3) Carbomer (GCP Glass Fill).Molars were evaluated clinically every 3 months for one year using modified USPHS Criteria. In thein-vitro part of the study thirty second mandibular molars were collected and divided in three equalgroups. Molars were restored as in the clinical groups and sealed at root apices. Samples weresubjected to thermocycling (500 cycles, 5˚C/ 55˚C) and immersed in methylene blue dye for 24hours at 37°C. Specimens were sectioned mesio-distally and evaluated for microleakage by meansof dye penetration scoring under stereomicroscope. Data were recorded and analyzed statistically.Results:· Compomer and Giomer groups showed statistically significant clinical success thanthe Carbomer group according to USPHS criteria.· Microleakage at the gingival margin in all groups was statistically significantly higherthan at the occlusal surfaces.· Compomer and Giomer showed the least microleakage scores in Class II cavitypreparations.· Microleakage was statistically higher in Carbomer (GCP Glass Fill) group.Conclusions: When esthetics and durability are of prime importance, compomer and Giomerserve as advocated esthetic restorative materials in class II in primary molars.

Effect of different intermediary bases on microleakage of a restorative material in Class II box cavities of primary teeth.

The aim of this in vitro study was to assess and compare the effect of different intermediary bases on microleakage between tooth and a nanocomposite interface in Class II box cavities in primary teeth. Standard Class II box cavities were prepared in 52 primary molars and randomly divided into 9 groups according to the intermediary base used (Multicore Flow, Fuji II LC, SDR, Smart Dentin Replacement, and Biodentine). All specimens were subjected to thermocycling and prepared for microleakage testing and evaluation. There was significant difference in the mean ranks of microleakage between the 9 groups, which was observed in the gingival side (p<0.0001) and the occlusal side (p<0.0001). The mean ranks microleakage was significantly higher with experimental SDR, experimental Multicore Flow, and positive control materials when compared with the other 6 groups. The microleakage mean ranks were statistically significantly lower in experimental Fuji II LC, experimental Biodentine, and all negative control groups when compared with the other 3 groups. Microleakage is affected by the application of intermediate material. Experimental Biodentine and Fuji II LC showed the lowest microleakage while experimental SDR and experimental Multicore Flow showed the highest microleakage.

In vitro wear of Ionofil Molar AC quick glass-ionomer cement

The aim of this study was to evaluate the three-body wear-resistance of one type of restorative glass-ionomer cement (GIC). Specimen including conventional GIC (Ionofil Molar AC Quick: IMACQ), hybrid ionomer (Fuji II LC), and composite resin (Heliomolar) were tested in a wearing machine. In this machine, a 6 kg load was applied via pressable chromium-cobalt bar at 5,000, 10,000, 20,000, 40,000, 80,000, 120,000 cycles. Specimen weight was measured by an electronical weight balance before and after each cycle. Data were analyzed using one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) followed by a t-test, and a paired t-test at P≤0.05. The highest weight loss has been found in Fuji II LC, then in GIC IMACQ and the least wear rate has been reported in heliomolar composite in all cycles except 120,000 cycles. In 120,000 cycles, the highest weight loss was seen in GIC IMACQ, then Fuji II LC, and finally heliomolar composite. There was a statistically significant difference in weight loss between GIC IMACQ and heliomolar composite (P=0/001). The wear rate of GIC IMACQ was between those of heliomolar composite and Fuji II LC glass ionomer in all cycles except 120,000 cycles. The most important advantage of this new-generation glass ionomer is its good manipulability and also high wear-resistance compared to the hybrid ionomer. Therefore, it is suggested that it can be used as restorative material in class I restorations in primary teeth.

Comparison of Conventional versus Colored Compomers for Class II Restorations in Primary Molars: A 12-Month Clinical Study

Objective: To evaluate the 12-month clinical performance of conventional (Compoglass F) and colored (Twinky Star) compomer restorative materials in class II restorations of primary molars. Materials and Methods: A total of 196 restorations were placed in 98 children aged between 5 and 10 years (mean age: 7.43 ± 1.31 years) who had bilateral matched pairs of carious posterior class II primary molars. A split-mouth design was used in which 2 materials (Compoglass F, Twinky Star) were randomly placed on contralateral sides by 3 dentists. At baseline, after 6 and after 12 months, the restorations were evaluated using modified US Public Health Service criteria for: secondary caries, marginal integrity, marginal discoloration, anatomic form and surface texture. The Alpha and Bravo scores were considered as clinical success. The data were subjected to statistical analysis by the Wilcoxon and McNemar tests (p < 0.05). The Kaplan-Meier survival method was applied to estimate survival percentages. Results: No significant difference was found among the groups at all recalls regarding marginal integrity, marginal discoloration, anatomic form, secondary caries and surface texture. The 12-month mean cumulative survival rate of Compoglass F was 95.7%, while in the Twinky Star group, the survival rate was 93% in class II restorations with no significant difference between the groups for either material. Conclusion: Both conventional and colored compomer materials are suitable restorative materials for primary teeth for at least 12 months. Colored compomers could also be a good alternative to tooth-colored compomers in the restoration of primary molars.

Clinical Evaluation Of Different Posterior Composite Restorative Materials In Class I And Class Ii Restorations: An In-Vivo Study

The study investigated the clinical performance of two posterior composite restorative materials in class I and class II restorations over a period of 6 months. 25 patients were selected randomly from the out patients coming to department. Written patient consent was obtained at the start of procedure. The composite restorative materials tested were Ceram-X Duo (Dentsply Detrey) and Heliomolar (Ivoclar Vivadent). Class I and class II restorations were performed by a single operator using adhesive preparation design with no margin beveling. Only small to moderate cavities were included in the study. All the restoration were evaluated using United States Public Health Services (USPHS) criteria at baseline and there after at an interval of 1, 3 and 6 months by two investigators independently. Changes in the parameters during the 6 month period were evaluated using Friedman test. No statistical significance was found between the two materials regarding any of the parameters tested over a period of 6 months. But clinically significant difference was found between the two materials. Ceram-X showed clinically better results than Heliomolar.

Overcoming the challenges of Class II resin-based composites

entists’ attitudes about the relative acceptability of the various materials used for Class II restorations have changed significantly during the past 20 years. Many dentists used to be skeptical about the potential longevity of resin-based composites (RBCs) when used in Class II locations, and amalgam was the dominant material used for posterior tooth restorations. A 2005 survey showed that although amalgam use still is relatively high in the United States, many dentists have eliminated it. Scientific evidence still appears to support the continued use of amalgam; however, in my many travels around the world, I have found some countries, such as Japan, where amalgam does not appear to be used by any practitioner. It is obvious to me that amalgam use will decrease inevitably and that RBC will be used as the primary restorative material for Class II restorations. Unfortunately, successful placement of RBC restorations still poses several challenges that make some dentists hesitate to use the material as a routine restorative for Class II situations. Can these challenges be overcome, or are there inherent problems that make RBC restorations a continuing problem? In this article, I will discuss the challenges observed when using RBC in Class II locations and suggest potential solutions for each of them.

Finite element analysis of strength characteristics of various resin based restorative materials in Class V cavities.

This study investigated the strength characteristics of various composites (Tetric Ceram, Tetric Flow, Prisma AP.H, Synergy Duo Shade, Synergy Compact, and Z 100) and compomers (Compoglass, Compoglass F, Dyract AP, F 2000) that were applied in a Class V cavity of a maxillary central incisor. The study was conducted by using a 3-dimensional finite element approach and in the study ansys package program was used. The tooth model had 294 elements and 420 nodes. The teeth considered were assumed to be subjected to an incisal load of 200 N acting at an angle of 26 degrees with the longitudinal axis of the tooth but the effects of different loading angles and different loads were also analysed. Hence, the loads of 100 and 400 N and the loading angles of 0 degrees representing bruxism and 90 degrees representing a traumatic load were also taken into consideration. The effects of the cavity preparation size were also studied. It was determined that any increase in the loading angle and/or the amount of the load resulted in a proportional increase in the stresses developed in the tooth. Furthermore it was also verified that, as a cavity weakens the tooth structure by creating a discontinuity in an intact tooth, the larger sized cavity preparations inevitably cause larger stresses to be developed in the tooth. Strictly from the mechanical point of view, the stresses developed in the restored teeth were determined to be inversely proportional with the modulus of elasticity of the restorative materials. Therefore within the scope of the study Z 100 was found to be superior to the other materials concerned.

Clinical performance of resin-modified glass ionomer cement restorations in primary teeth: A retrospective evaluation

The authors retrospectively evaluated the clinical performance of one resin-modified glass ionomer cement as a restorative material in Class I, Class II, Class III and Class V restorations in primary teeth. A total of 306 patients who had received a total of 864 resin-modified glass ionomer restorations, which had been in their mouths for a minimum of three years, were included in this evaluation. The authors assessed the clinical observations recorded in patients' records and used bitewing radiographs to assess Class II restorations. The authors found an overall restoration success rate of 93.0 percent, with Class I restorations having a 92.6 percent success rate, Class II restorations having a 93.3 percent success rate, Class III restorations having a 100 percent success rate, and Class V restorations having a 98.0 percent success rate. The resin-modified glass ionomer cement functioned well as a Class I, Class II, Class III and Class V restorative material in primary teeth. Resin-modified glass ionomer restorative cement is a durable and reliable material to use for Class I, Class II, Class III and Class V restorations in primary teeth. Therefore, dentists have a proven alternative to silver amalgam and resin-based composite for primary tooth restoration.