Clinical Performance Evaluation of a Glass-ionomer Restorative System Evaluation

Not Applicable

Completed

• Conditions: Dental Caries

• Registration Number: NCT03822403
• Lead Sponsor: Hacettepe University

Brief Summary

The aim of this clinical trial was to compare the clinical performances of a glass ionomer restorative system with a micro hybrid resin based composite in class I and class II cavities. A total of 140 (80 class I and 60 class II) lesions in 59 patients were restored with a glass ionomer restorative system (Equia) or a micro hybrid composite(Gradia Direct). Restorations were evaluated at baseline and yearly during 9 years according to the modified-USPHS criteria. Data were analyzed with Cohcran's Q and McNemar's tests (p\<0.05).

Detailed Description

Since the introduction of glass ionomers many modifications of these materials have been performed over the years. Compared to other permanent filling materials like resin-based composites, glass ionomers show several advantages, such as the ability to adhere to moist enamel and dentin and anti- cariogenic properties such as the long-term fluoride release. So, it was doubtful that glass ionomers represent a capable counterpart of amalgam or resin-based composites in posterior teeth.

Study Timeline

• Study Start: 2009-05-01
• Status Verified: 2019-01
• Primary Completion: 2019-01-01
• Study Completion: 2019-01-01
• Study First Submitted: 2019-01-28
• Study First Submitted QC: 2019-01-28
• Last Update Submitted: 2019-01-28
• Study First Posted: 2019-01-30
• Last Update Posted: 2019-01-30

Recruitment & Eligibility

• Status: COMPLETED
• Sex: All
• Target Recruitment: 54

Inclusion Criteria

1. a need for at least two but not more than four posterior toothcolored restorations;
2. the presence of teeth to be restored in occlusion;
3. teeth that were symptomless and vital;
4. a normal periodontal status;
5. a good likelihood of recall availability.

Exclusion Criteria

1. partly erupted teeth;
2. absence of adjacent and antagonist teeth
3. poor periodontal status;
4. adverse medical history;
5. potential behavioral problems.

Study & Design

• Study Type: INTERVENTIONAL
• Study Design: PARALLEL

Primary Outcome Measures

Name	Time	Method
retention rate	From baseline to 9 year the change of restorations was evaluated	Observers evaluated the restorations was performed using the modified United State Public Health Service criteria regarding retention rate. Retention rate was evaluated by 2 independent clinicians. Visual inspection with a mirror at 18 inches was performed .; A score means the higher score of clinical acceptability while C and D score means that the restoration has failed and needs to be replaced. Alpha 1:Clinically excellent Alpha 2: Clinically good with slight deviations from ideal performance, correction possible without damage of tooth or restoration Bravo: Clinically sufficient with few defects, corrections or repair of the restoration possible Charlie: Restoration is partially missed Delta: Restoration is totally missed
color change	From baseline to 9 year the change of restorations was evaluated	Observers evaluated the restorations was performed using the modified United State Public Health Service criteria regarding color change. Colour changes was evaluated by 2 independent clinicians. Visual inspection with a mirror at 18 inches was performed . A score means the higher score of clinical acceptability while C score means that the restoration has failed and needs to be replaced. Alpha: The restoration matches the adjacent tooth structure in color and translucency.; Bravo: Light mismatch in color, shade or translucency between the restoration and the adjacent tooth. Charlie: The mismatch in color and translucency is outside the acceptable range of tooth color and translucency
Observers evaluated the restorations was performed using the modified United State Public Health Service criteria Observers evaluated the restorations was performed using the modified United State Public Health Service criteria Marginal adaptation	From baseline to 9 year the change of restorations was evaluated	Observers evaluated the restorations was performed using the modified United State Public Health Service criteria regarding marginal adaptation. Marginal adaptation was evaluated by 2 independent clinicians. Visual inspection with a mirror at 18 inches was performed . A score means the higher score of clinical acceptability while C and D score means that the restoration has failed and needs to be replaced. Alpha 1: Harmonious outline Alpha 2: Marginal gap (max 100μ) with discoloration (removable)
marginal discoloration	From baseline to 9 year the change of restorations was evaluated	Observers evaluated the restorations was performed using the modified United State Public Health Service criteria regarding marginal discoloration. Marginal discolouration was evaluated by 2 independent clinicians. Visual inspection with a mirror at 18 inches was performed . A score means the higher score of clinical acceptability while C score means that the restoration has failed and needs to be replaced. Alpha: No discoloration anywhere along the margin between the restoration and the adjacent tooth. Bravo: Slight discoloration along the margin between the restoration and the adjacent tooth. Charlie: The discoloration penetrated along the margin of the restorative material in a pulpal direction
anatomic form	From baseline to 9 year the change of restorations was evaluated	Observers evaluated the restorations was performed using the modified United State Public Health Service criteria regarding anatomic form. Anatomic form was evaluated by 2 independent clinicians. Visual inspection with a mirror at 18 inches was performed .; A score means the higher score of clinical acceptability while C score means that the restoration has failed and needs to be replaced. Alpha 1: Continuous with existing anatomical form Alpha 2: Slightly discontinuous due to some chipping on the proximal ridge Bravo: Discontinuous with existing anatomical form due to material loss but proximal contact still present Charlie: Proximal contact is lost with ridge fracture.

Trial Locations

Locations (1)

Hacettepe University School of Dentistry; 🇹🇷 Ankara, Turkey