The Journal of the American Dental Association
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


J Am Dent Assoc, Vol 133, No 6, 744-751.
© 2002 American Dental Association

This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by YIP, K. H-K.
Right arrow Articles by PENG, D.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by YIP, K. H-K.
Right arrow Articles by PENG, D.
Related Collections
Right arrow Restoratives

COSMETIC & RESTORATIVE CARE

JADA Continuing Education

The effects of two cavity preparation methods on the longevity of glass ionomer cement restorations

An evaluation after 12 months



KEVIN H-K. YIP, B.D.S., M.Ed., M.Med.Sc., Ph.D., ROGER J. SMALES, M.D.S., D.D.Sc., WEI GAO, B.D.S., Ph.D. and DONG PENG, B.D.S., M.Sc., Ph.D.

Background. The authors undertook a study to evaluate the effect of two cavity preparation methods on the initial survival of two more-viscous glass ionomer cements, or GICs, placed in the occlusal surfaces of permanent molar teeth.

Methods. Three dentists placed 149 restorations in 68 adult patients in a hospital clinic. They used either atraumatic restorative treatment, or ART, or conventional cavity preparation methods to place two encapsulated esthetic conventional GICs: Fuji IX GP (GC International Corp., Tokyo) and Ketac-Molar Aplicap (3M ESPE, Seefeld, Germany). For comparison, they used high-copper-content GK Amalgam Alloy (Advanced Technology & Materials Co. Ltd., Beijing) in conventional preparations. They evaluated the restorations using both direct and indirect observation methods.

Results. Cavity preparations for which the authors used ART hand instruments took approximately twice as long to complete as did those for which they used conventional rotary instruments. After 12 months, no restorations had failed, but restorations comprising both GICs showed early losses of adjacent sealant material. Both GICs also showed relatively high restoration wear. At 12 months, the mean cumulative net occlusal wear for Fuji IX GP was 77 ± 47 micrometers, and for Ketac-Molar 83 ± 51 µm, without statistical significance (P > .05). Color matching improved significantly with time (P < .001), without significant differences in color between the two GICs by 12 months (P = .09). The amalgam alloy had minor surface tarnishing and marginal discrepancies increased with time (P < .001).

Conclusions. All of the occlusal restorations were rated as satisfactory after 12 months. The method of cavity preparation did not affect the restoration performance of the GICs. However, their deterioration requires long-term monitoring.

Clinical Implications. The more viscous GICs appear initially suitable for restricted use in clinical practice when placed using either of two cavity preparation methods in the occlusal surfaces of permanent molar teeth in adults.







HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright©1995-2002 American Dental Association (ADA).
Reproduction or republication strictly prohibited without prior written permission of ADA.