Abstract
Background
Laboratory studies show diverse behaviour of different brands of glass-ionomer cements (GIC).
Aim
This study investigated the clinical performance [survival rate (SR)] of three GIC brands applied to proximal atraumatic restorative treatment (ART) restorations. Additionally, the SR of the tooth was evaluated.
Design
Proximal cavities of 262 primary molars were restored. The patients had been randomly allocated to two operators and three GIC brands: Fuji IX, Hi-Dense, and Maxxion R. Restorations were evaluated after 1, 6, 12, 18, 24, 30, and 36 months. Failed restorations were, if possible, repaired or replaced. Linear regression analyses were used to evaluate the effect of GIC brand, operator, and surface of restoration. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis and log-rank test were performed for both restoration survival and tooth survival (α = 5%).
Results
After 3 years, 82.4% of the restorations were evaluated. The SR of the restorations was 24.4%, and there was no difference among GIC brands (log-rank test, P = 0.6). In the first 18 months, a significant operator effect and significantly higher failures in distal surfaces were found. The SR of the tooth was 81.7%.
Conclusions
The SR of proximal ART restorations was relatively low when compared with the SR of the tooth. There are no differences in the performance among the GIC brands used in the study.
Laboratory studies show diverse behaviour of different brands of glass-ionomer cements (GIC).
Aim
This study investigated the clinical performance [survival rate (SR)] of three GIC brands applied to proximal atraumatic restorative treatment (ART) restorations. Additionally, the SR of the tooth was evaluated.
Design
Proximal cavities of 262 primary molars were restored. The patients had been randomly allocated to two operators and three GIC brands: Fuji IX, Hi-Dense, and Maxxion R. Restorations were evaluated after 1, 6, 12, 18, 24, 30, and 36 months. Failed restorations were, if possible, repaired or replaced. Linear regression analyses were used to evaluate the effect of GIC brand, operator, and surface of restoration. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis and log-rank test were performed for both restoration survival and tooth survival (α = 5%).
Results
After 3 years, 82.4% of the restorations were evaluated. The SR of the restorations was 24.4%, and there was no difference among GIC brands (log-rank test, P = 0.6). In the first 18 months, a significant operator effect and significantly higher failures in distal surfaces were found. The SR of the tooth was 81.7%.
Conclusions
The SR of proximal ART restorations was relatively low when compared with the SR of the tooth. There are no differences in the performance among the GIC brands used in the study.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 251-258 |
| Journal | International Journal of Paediatric Dentistry |
| Volume | 23 |
| Issue number | 4 |
| DOIs | |
| Publication status | Published - 2013 |