Comparasion of two minimally invasive methods on the longevity of glass ionomer cement restorations: short-term results of a pilot study

DSpace Repository

Comparasion of two minimally invasive methods on the longevity of glass ionomer cement restorations: short-term results of a pilot study

Show full item record

Files for download

Find Full text There are no files associated with this item.

Facebook

Simple item record

Publication Article, peer reviewed scientific
Title Comparasion of two minimally invasive methods on the longevity of glass ionomer cement restorations: short-term results of a pilot study
Author(s) Jesus Esteves Barata, Terezinha ; Bresciani, Eduardo ; Ribeiro Mattos, Maria Cecília ; Pereira Lauris, José Roberto ; Ericson, Dan ; Fidela de Lima Navarro, Maria
Date 2008
English abstract
The purpose of this study was to evaluate the clinical performance of glass ionomer cement (GIC) restorations comparing two minimally invasive methods in permanent teeth after 12 months. Fifty pregnant women (second trimester of pregnancy), mean age 22 ± 5.30 years, were treated by two previously trained operators. The treatment approaches tested were: chemomechanical method (CarisolvTM; MediTeam) and atraumatic restorative treatment (ART). A split-mouth study design was used in which the two treatments were randomly placed in 50 matched pairs of permanent teeth. The chemomechanical method (CM) was the test group and the ART was the control group. The treatments were performed in Public Health Centers. The tested restorative material was a high-strength GIC (Ketac Molar; 3M/ESPE). The restorations were placed according to the ART guidelines. Two calibrated independent examiners evaluated the restorations in accordance with ART criteria. The inter-examiner kappa was 0.97. Data were analyzed using 95% confidence interval on the binomial distribution and Fisher's exact test at 5% significance level. In a 12-month follow-up, 86% of the restorations were evaluated. In the test group (CM), 100% (CI=93.3-100%) of the restorations were considered successful. In the control group (ART) 97.6% (CI=87.4-99.9%) of the restorations were considered successful and 2.4% unsuccessful (marginal defect >0.5 mm). There was no statistically significant difference between the 12-mounth success rate for both groups (Fisher's exact test: P=0.49) and between the two operators (Fisher's exact test: P=1.00). Both minimally invasive methods, chemomechanical method and ART, showed a similar clinical performance after 12 months of follow up. Key words: Clinical trials. Restorations. Glass ionomer cements. Atraumatic Restorative Treatment. chemomechanical method. Carisolv.
DOI http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S1678-77572008000200014 (link to publisher's fulltext)
Host/Issue Journal of Applied Oral Science;2
Volume 16
ISSN 1678-7757
Pages 155-60
Language eng (iso)
Subject(s) Medicine
Research Subject Categories::ODONTOLOGY
Handle http://hdl.handle.net/2043/10154 (link to this page)

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show full item record

Search


Browse

My Account

Statistics