Print this page Email this page Users Online: 73
Home About us Editorial board Search Ahead of print Current issue Archives Submit article Instructions Subscribe Contacts Login 
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Year : 2017  |  Volume : 5  |  Issue : 1  |  Page : 6-13

Clinical and radiographic evaluation of glass ionomer compared to resin composite in restoring primary molars: A 1-year prospective randomized study


1 Department of Pediatric Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, Beirut Arab University, Beirut, Lebanon
2 Department of Pediatric Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, Beirut Arab University, Beirut, Lebanon; Department of Pediatric Dentistry, Faculty of Oral and Dental Medicine, Cairo University, Giza, Egypt
3 Department of Pediatric Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, Beirut Arab University, Beirut, Lebanon; Department of Restorative Dentistry, Misr University for Science and Technology, Egypt

Correspondence Address:
Salma Hamie
Beirut Arab University, P. O. Box: 11-5020, Beirut
Lebanon
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/jpd.jpd_11_17

Rights and Permissions

To compare the clinical performance of glass ionomer (GI) versus resin composite. A total of 40 Class II restorations were placed in 12 patients aged 4—8-year-old. Patients had to have one or more pair of contralateral teeth indicated for Class II restorations. The two materials, GI (ChemFil™ Rock) and resin composite (Z350) were randomly placed in a split mouth design. The restorations were evaluated using foreign direct investment criteria after 3, 6, 9, and 12 months. Data were subjected to statistical analysis. The result did not reflect any significant differences at the first 6 months evaluation. However, change appeared at 9 and 12 months evaluation regarding; anatomic form, fracture of material and retention, marginal adaptation, wear, proximal anatomical form, contact point, proximal contour, radiographic examination, recurrence of caries and periodontal response. Resin composite Z350 showed better clinical performance than ChemFil™ Rock after 1-year follow-up.


[FULL TEXT] [PDF]*
Print this article     Email this article
 Next article
 Previous article
 Table of Contents

 Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
 Citation Manager
 Access Statistics
 Reader Comments
 Email Alert *
 Add to My List *
 * Requires registration (Free)
 

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed119    
    Printed7    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded62    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal