跳至主要内容
临床试验/NCT03822403
NCT03822403已完成不适用

Randomized, Controlled Clinical Evaluation of Glass Ionomer System vs Composite Posterior Restorations

Hacettepe University2 个研究点 分布在 1 个国家目标入组 54 人开始时间: 2009年5月1日最近更新:
适应症
干预措施

试验速览

阶段
不适用
状态
已完成
入组人数
54
试验地点
2
主要终点
retention rate

研究概览

简要总结

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).

详细描述

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.

研究设计

研究类型
Interventional
分配方式
Randomized
干预模型
Parallel
主要目的
Treatment
盲法
Double (Participant, Investigator)

盲法说明

Double (Participant, Investigator)

入排标准

年龄范围
20 Years 至 50 Years(Adult)
性别
All
接受健康志愿者

入选标准

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

排除标准

  • partly erupted teeth;
  • absence of adjacent and antagonist teeth
  • poor periodontal status;
  • adverse medical history;
  • potential behavioral problems.

研究组 & 干预措施

EQUIA

Active Comparator

EQUIA Placing glass ionomer restorations, the dentin and enamel of cavities were conditioned with 20% polyacrylic acid for 20 seconds, washed, and briefly dried. Equia Fil was injected into the cavity. Isolation was maintained using cotton rolls and a saliva ejector. After the setting time of 2.5 minutes, the restoration was polished wet using high-speed fine diamonds. When the restoration was briefly dried, Equia Coat was applied and photocured for 20 seconds using a photo-curing light.

干预措施: EQUIA (Device)

Gradia Direct Posterior

Active Comparator

Gradia Direct Posterior The enamel and dentin were conditioned with G-Bond adhesive using a microtip applicator, left undisturbed for five to 10 seconds, and then dried thoroughly for five seconds with oil-free air under air pressure, Gradia Direct Posterior resin was applied with the incremental technique (2 mm thick layers) and light-cured for 20 seconds. Finally, the restoration was shaped with finishing diamonds and silicon instruments.

干预措施: Gradia Direct Posterior (Device)

结局指标

主要结局

retention rate

时间窗: 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

时间窗: 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

时间窗: 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

时间窗: 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

时间窗: 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.

次要结局

未报告次要终点

研究者

申办方类型
Other
责任方
Principal Investigator
主要研究者

Zeynep Bilge Kutuk

Assistant Professor

Hacettepe University

研究点 (2)

Loading locations...

相似试验