HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

J Am Dent Assoc, Vol 135, No 4, 451-457. © 2004 American Dental Association

This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by MATIS, B. A. Articles by ECKERT, G. J. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by MATIS, B. A. Articles by ECKERT, G. J. Related Collections Restoratives

JADA Continuing Education

Background. A new restorative called a "giomer composite" has been introduced. The authors conducted a study to determine retention, anatomical form, caries, staining, marginal discoloration, marginal adaptation, surface roughness and sensitivity of giomer compared with those of a microfilled composite.

Methods. The authors placed 40 sets of restorations randomly in canines and pre-molars in vivo. They used a giomer composite and a microfilled composite in erosion/abrasion/abfraction Class V lesions that were not altered with rotary instruments. They placed the restorations according to manufacturer’s recommendations, and two calibrated examiners evaluated the restorations independently using modified U.S. Public Health Service criteria at baseline and at six, 18 and 36 months. The lesions receiving the restorations did not differ from each other in the amount of circumferential enamel present, the percentage of the surface area of dentin or lesion type.

Results. There were no differences in the restorations at baseline, an evaluation made two weeks after placement. At 36 months, the giomer and microfilled composite restorations were not significantly different from one another in any of the eight criteria evaluated. The percentage agreement between examiners was at least 83 percent for each criterion in each evaluation period.

Conclusions. Both the giomer and the microfilled composite used in this study meet the clinical portion of the Acceptance Program Guidelines for Dentin and Enamel Adhesives Materials established by the American Dental Association.

Clinical Implications. Both the giomer and the microfilled composite used in this study can be used with confidence in Class V lesions.

This article has been cited by other articles:

				V. V. Gordan, E. Mondragon, R. E. Watson, C. Garvan, and I. A. Mjor A clinical evaluation of a self-etching primer and a giomer restorative material: Results at eight years J Am Dent Assoc, May 1, 2007; 138(5): 621 - 627. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				J. D. Overton CONCLUSIONS QUESTIONED J Am Dent Assoc, March 1, 2006; 137(3): 300 - 303. [Full Text] [PDF]