IADR Abstract Archives
Clinical Evaluation Of Reinforced Glass Ionomer Systems After 6 Years
Objectives: The aim of this study was to evaluate the clinical performance of two reinforced glass ionomer cements after a period of 6 years.
Methods: Fifty-four patients having Class I and II restorations/caries were included in the study. A total of 252 restorations were made with Equia (GC Corp, Japan) and Riva (SDI, Australia). G-coat Plus or GC varnish were used randomly on the surface of the restorations. Equia + G-coat Plus is presently called EquiaFil. After cavity preparations, the teeth were randomly restored with one glass ionomer cement and coated with G-coat Plus or GC Varnish. The restorations were evaluated at baseline, 6, 12, 18 months and 6 years after placement using modified USPHS criteria. Color-match, marginal discoloration, marginal adaptation, caries formation, anatomical form, postoperative sensitivity and retention rate were checked by two evaluators and photographs were taken at each recalls. The results were evaluated with Chi-Square (p< 0.05).
Results: 37 patients were evaluated. There was significant difference between EquiaFil and Riva regarding retention rate and color-match after 6 years (p=0,033 and 0,046). When comparing baseline to 6 years, the overall success of EquiaFil was better than Riva having significant problems regarding retention rate and anatomical form (p=0,016 and 0,031). Class II cavities were significantly worse in marginal adaptation, anatomical form and retention rate in Riva groups (p=0,033, 0,015 and 0,007) but not in EquiaFil groups. The combination of the coatings had no effect on the overall success of the materials.
Conclusions: EquiaFil system was more successful than Riva regarding color-match and retention rate after a 6-year clinical period. Despite minor reparable defects, the overall clinical performance of EquiaFil was excellent even in large posterior Class II restorations after a period of 6 years.
The materials of this study were generously donated by GC and SDI.
Methods: Fifty-four patients having Class I and II restorations/caries were included in the study. A total of 252 restorations were made with Equia (GC Corp, Japan) and Riva (SDI, Australia). G-coat Plus or GC varnish were used randomly on the surface of the restorations. Equia + G-coat Plus is presently called EquiaFil. After cavity preparations, the teeth were randomly restored with one glass ionomer cement and coated with G-coat Plus or GC Varnish. The restorations were evaluated at baseline, 6, 12, 18 months and 6 years after placement using modified USPHS criteria. Color-match, marginal discoloration, marginal adaptation, caries formation, anatomical form, postoperative sensitivity and retention rate were checked by two evaluators and photographs were taken at each recalls. The results were evaluated with Chi-Square (p< 0.05).
Results: 37 patients were evaluated. There was significant difference between EquiaFil and Riva regarding retention rate and color-match after 6 years (p=0,033 and 0,046). When comparing baseline to 6 years, the overall success of EquiaFil was better than Riva having significant problems regarding retention rate and anatomical form (p=0,016 and 0,031). Class II cavities were significantly worse in marginal adaptation, anatomical form and retention rate in Riva groups (p=0,033, 0,015 and 0,007) but not in EquiaFil groups. The combination of the coatings had no effect on the overall success of the materials.
Conclusions: EquiaFil system was more successful than Riva regarding color-match and retention rate after a 6-year clinical period. Despite minor reparable defects, the overall clinical performance of EquiaFil was excellent even in large posterior Class II restorations after a period of 6 years.
The materials of this study were generously donated by GC and SDI.