Investigation of Glass Carbomer Performance

Not Applicable

Completed

• Conditions: Dental Caries
• Interventions: Other: Restoration of cavities using nanocomposite resin (Tokuyama Estelite Posterior); Other: Restoration of cavities using glass carbomer material (GCP Dental)

• Registration Number: NCT04127929
• Lead Sponsor: Okan University

Brief Summary

The aim of this in vivo study was to evaluate the clinical 1 year follow-up of silica and flouroapatite reinforced glass carbomer filling material.

Detailed Description

The aim of this in vivo study was to evaluate the clinical 1 year follow-up of silica and flouroapatite reinforced glass carbomer filling material.

In this study, total of 100 (46 class I, 54 class II) restorations were performed in 36 patients. All cavities were prepared conventionally. Half of the restorations were restored with nano composite resin (Tokuyama Estelite, Tokuyama Dental, Japan) and the other half were restored with glass carbomer material (GCP Dental, The Netherlands). Rubber-dam was used for isolation. Before the replacement of composite restorations, enamel edges were etched according to selective etching method. Then universal adhesive system was applied. Composite resin was applied to the cavity in 2 mm layers by incramental technique. Glass carbomer was placed with bulk technique by applying finger pressure with surface covering. Composite restorations were polymerized with LED light curing unit. Glass carbomer restorations were cured its own special curing unit. 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. Wilcoxon sign test was used for intra-group comparisons of the parameters. Statistically significance was evaluated at p \<0.05.

Study Timeline

• Study Start: 2017-09-09
• Primary Completion: 2017-09-16
• Study Completion: 2018-09-10
• Status Verified: 2019-10
• Study First Submitted: 2019-10-04
• Study First Submitted QC: 2019-10-15
• Last Update Submitted: 2019-10-15
• Study First Posted: 2019-10-16
• Last Update Posted: 2019-10-16

Recruitment & Eligibility

• Status: COMPLETED
• Sex: All
• Target Recruitment: 36

Inclusion Criteria

1. 20-25 years of age
2. No systemic diseases
3. Presence of molar / premolar teeth with occlusal and / or interface caries
4. Lack of parafunctional habits such as clenching and grinding of teeth
5. Lack of cooperation problems
6. Accepted regular visits -

Exclusion Criteria

• 1-Any endodontic treatment or withdrawal indications (abscess, swelling and fistula complaints, palpation and percussion pain, spontaneous or night pain) 2- Teeth with congenital developmental defect 3- Teeth with pathological mobility 4- Teeth which do not have normal occlusion due to skeletal or pathological reasons 5- Lack of contact or opposite teeth

Study & Design

• Study Type: INTERVENTIONAL
• Study Design: PARALLEL

Arm && Interventions

Group	Intervention	Description
Tokuyama Estelite Posterior	Restoration of cavities using nanocomposite resin (Tokuyama Estelite Posterior)	-
Glass carbomer	Restoration of cavities using glass carbomer material (GCP Dental)	-

Primary Outcome Measures

Name	Time	Method
Evaluation of criterias	1 week	In this clinical study, the restorations were evaluated.Restorations were scored. using the terms Alpha, Bravo and Charlie.Alpha was used for restorations that were considered clinically successful; Bravo was used for the restorations with several deficiencies but requiring no replacement; and Charlie was used for the clinically unacceptable restorations where the restoration had to be replaced.End of the one-week there was no significant differences between restorative materials for all evaluation criterias, were mentioned in summary.

Secondary Outcome Measures

Name	Time	Method
Evaluation of criterias	6-months	In this clinical study, the restorations were evaluated.Restorations were scored using the terms Alpha, Bravo and Charlie.Alpha was used for restorations that were considered clinically successful; Bravo was used for the restorations with several deficiencies but requiring no replacement; and Charlie was used for the clinically unacceptable restorations where the restoration had to be replaced.2. When the restorations made using glass carbomer filling materials were evaluated in terms of anatomic form, retention, and marginal adaptation, restorations with Charlie score in the 6-months

Trial Locations

Locations (1)

Bezmialem vakif university; 🇹🇷 Istanbul, Fatih, Turkey