IADR Abstract Archives
Clinical Performance of a Glass Ionomer for Restoration in Adolescents
Objectives: This is a longitudinal prospective split mouth randomized controlled clinical trial with the objective to study two different glass ionomer restorative materials, Ketac Molar (KM) and Ketac Universal (KU), for Class II restorations in the adolescent population during three-year follow-up. Funding for this project was provided by 3M Oral Care.
Methods: Sixty adolescents, ages 12 to 17 years old, who were in need of two Class II restorations were enrolled in this study.After 120 Class II lesions in permanent teeth wererestored with Ketac Molar or Ketac Universal, the patients are being seen at annual follow-ups.
Results: Year 1 Results: At the 1-year recall, 25 patients (41.6%) have been evaluated. The remaining 35 patients did not show for their 1-year recall. 17 (68%) of the evaluated KU and 22 (88%) of the KM restorations showed unchanged scores compared to Baseline, while 8 (32%) of the KU and 3 (12%) of the KM showed a performance decline in 1 or more categories while still being clinically acceptable (in most cases due to limited wear or minor chipping). 2 (8% failure rate) of the KU due to retention loss and none of the KM failed. There were no statistically significant differences between KU and KM (p>0.05).
Conclusions: Both materials show acceptable performance at the 1-year recall. Since the study is ongoing, no further conclusion can be made at this time.
Methods: Sixty adolescents, ages 12 to 17 years old, who were in need of two Class II restorations were enrolled in this study.After 120 Class II lesions in permanent teeth wererestored with Ketac Molar or Ketac Universal, the patients are being seen at annual follow-ups.
Results: Year 1 Results: At the 1-year recall, 25 patients (41.6%) have been evaluated. The remaining 35 patients did not show for their 1-year recall. 17 (68%) of the evaluated KU and 22 (88%) of the KM restorations showed unchanged scores compared to Baseline, while 8 (32%) of the KU and 3 (12%) of the KM showed a performance decline in 1 or more categories while still being clinically acceptable (in most cases due to limited wear or minor chipping). 2 (8% failure rate) of the KU due to retention loss and none of the KM failed. There were no statistically significant differences between KU and KM (p>0.05).
Conclusions: Both materials show acceptable performance at the 1-year recall. Since the study is ongoing, no further conclusion can be made at this time.