Article Menu

Export Article

More by Authors Links

Article Data

  • Views 2388
  • Dowloads 266

Original Research

Open Access

A Retrospective Study of the 3-Year Survival Rate of Resin-Modified Glass-Ionomer Cement Class II Restorations in Primary Molars

  • Mark Webman1,*,
  • Ezat Mulki2
  • Rosie Roldan3
  • Oscar Arevalo3
  • John F Roberts4
  • Franklin Garcia-Godoy5

1Miami Children’s Hospital and full-time private practice South Miami, FL

2pediatric dentistry Miami Children’s Hospital now private practice Atlanta, GA

3Pediatric Dental Residency Program, Miami Children’s Hospital

4Private practice London, England

5Senior Executive Associate Dean for Research, University of Tennessee, College of Dentistry

DOI: 10.17796/1053-4628-40.1.8 Vol.40,Issue 1,January 2016 pp.8-13

Published: 01 January 2016

*Corresponding Author(s): Mark Webman E-mail: msweb@bellsouth.net

PDF (353.47 kB) View Full-text

Abstract

Objective: To determine the three-year survival rate of Class II resin-modified glass-ionomer cement (RMGIC), Vitremer, restorations in primary molars and to compare these results with measurements of survival of Class II restorations of standard restorative materials. Study Design: Data on Class II restorations placed in primary molars during a six-year period were collected through a chart review and radiographic evaluation in the office of a board-certified pediatric dentist. A radiograph showing that the restoration was intact was required at least 3 years after placement to qualify as successful. If no radiograph existed, the restoration was excluded. If the restoration was not found to be intact radiographically or was charted as having been replaced before three years it was recorded as a failure. The results of this study were then compared to other standard restorative materials using normalized annual failure rates. Results: Of the 1,231 Class II resinmodified glass-ionomer cement restorations placed over six years 427 met the inclusion criteria. There was a 97.42% survival rate for a 3-year period equivalent to an annual failure rate of 0.86%. Conclusions: A novel approach comparing materials showed that in this study Vitremer compared very favorably to previously published success rates of other standard restorative materials (amalgam, composite, stainless steel crown, compomer) and other RMGIC studies.

Keywords

Dental restoration failure, Dental materials,Glass-ionomer cements,Survival analysis,Dental cavity preparation


Cite and Share

Mark Webman,Ezat Mulki,Rosie Roldan,Oscar Arevalo,John F Roberts,Franklin Garcia-Godoy. A Retrospective Study of the 3-Year Survival Rate of Resin-Modified Glass-Ionomer Cement Class II Restorations in Primary Molars. Journal of Clinical Pediatric Dentistry. 2016. 40(1);8-13.

URL:

https://www.jjocpd.com/articles/10.17796/1053-4628-40.1.8

References

1. Qvist, V, Laurberg, L, Paulsen, A, Teglers, PT. Class II restorations in primary teeth: 7-year study on three resin-modified glass ionomer cements and a compomer. Eur J Oral Sci;112:188-196. 2004

2. Hubel, S, Mejare, I. Conventional versus resin-modified glass-iomomer cement cement for Class II restorations in primary molars. A 3-year clinical study. Int J Peadiatr Dent;13:2-8. 2003.

3. Folkesson, U, Andersson-Wenclert, I, Van Duken, J. Resin-modified glass ionomer cement restorations in primary molars. Swed Dent J ;23:1-9. 1999.

4. McLean JW, Wilson AD. The clinical development of the glass ionomer cements, formulations and properties. Aust Dent J; 22:31-6.1977

5. Croll, TP, Berg, JH, Resin-modified glass-iomomer cement restoration of primary molars with proximating class II caries lesions. Compendium; 28(7);372-377. 2007.

6. Donly, KJ, Nelson, JJ, Fluoride release of restorative materials exposed to fluoride dentifrice. J Dent Child: July-Aug;240-241. 1997.

7. Garcia-Godoy, F, Jensen, ME. Artificial recurrent caries in glass ionomer lined amalgam restorations. Am J Dent; 1990;3:89-93.

8. Rawls, HR. Evaluation of fluoride-releasing dental mate-rials by means of in vitro and in vivo demineralization models: reaction paper. Adv Dent Res 1995;9:324-331.

9. Donly, KJ. Enamel and dentin demineralization inhibition of fluoride-releasing materials. Am J Dent;7:275-278. 1994.

10. Croll, TP, Bar-Zion, Y, Segura, A, Donly, KJ. Clinical performance of resin-modified glass ionomer cement restorations in primary teeth, a retrospective evaluation. JADA;132:1110-1115. 2001.

11. Hickel, R, Kaaden, C, Paschos, E, Buerkle,V, Garcia-Godoy, F, Manhart, J. Longevity of occlusally-stressed restorations in posterior primary teeth. Am J Dent;18(3):198-211. 2005.

12. Burke, FJT, Singh, V, Wilson, NHF. The Normalized Failure Index: A method for summarizing the results of studies on restoration longevity? Oper Dent;38:488-496. 2013.

13. Quist, V, Laurberg, L, Poulsen, A, Teglers, PT. Longevity and cariostatic effects of everyday conventional glass-ion-omer and amalgam restorations in primary teeth: Three-year results. J Dent Res;76(7):1387-1396. 1997.

14. Croll, TP, Killian, CM. Class I and Class II light-hard-ened glass-ionomer/resin restorations. Compen-dium;14:908,910-912,914. 1993.

15. Roberts, JF, Attari N, Sherriff, M. The survival of resin modified glass ionomer and stainless steel crown resto-rations in primary molars, placed in a specialist paediatric dental practice. Br Dent J; 198(7): 427-431. 2005.

16. Toh, SL, Messer, BM. Evidence-based assessment of tooth-colored restorations in proximal lesions of primary molars. Pediatr Dent;29(1):8-15. 2007.

17. Killian, CM, Croll, TP. Nano-ionomer tooth repair in pedi-atric dentistry. Pediatr Dent;32(7):530-535. 2010.


Submission Turnaround Time

Top