Clinical performance and caries inhibition of resin-modified: Glass ionomer cement and amalgam restorations

Kevin J. Donly, Adriana Segura, Michael Kanellis, Robert L. Erickson

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

94 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)1459-1466
Number of pages8
JournalJournal of the American Dental Association
Volume130
Issue number10
StatePublished - Oct 1999

Fingerprint

Glass Ionomer Cements
Dental Enamel
Tooth
Appointments and Schedules
Light

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Dentistry(all)

Cite this

Clinical performance and caries inhibition of resin-modified : Glass ionomer cement and amalgam restorations. / Donly, Kevin J.; Segura, Adriana; Kanellis, Michael; Erickson, Robert L.

In: Journal of the American Dental Association, Vol. 130, No. 10, 10.1999, p. 1459-1466.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{f8c30216233241e98f56f924ade1167d,
title = "Clinical performance and caries inhibition of resin-modified: Glass ionomer cement and amalgam restorations",
abstract = "Background. The authors clinically examined two restorative materials to evaluate their effectiveness in Class II restorations in primary molars and their ability to inhibit recurrent caries. Methods. Forty subjects, each in need of two Class II restorations in primary molars, took part in this study. Each patient received one Class II restoration of resin-modified glass ionomer cement and one of amalgam. The authors evaluated the restorations at six-month, one-year, two-year and three-year recall appointments. On exfoliation, teeth with experimental restorations were retrieved and microscopically examined for inhibition of demineralization at restoration margins. Results. The results of the clinical evaluation demonstrated no significant differences between the resin-modified glass ionomer cement restorations and the amalgam restorations (P < .05). Polarized light microscopic examination of the returned teeth that were restored as a part of this study indicated that the resin-modified glass ionomer cement had significantly less enamel demineralization at restoration margins than did amalgam (P < .0001). Conclusions. The resin-modified glass ionomer cement functioned clinically as well as amalgam for Class II restorations in primary molars. However, the resin-modified glass ionomer exhibited significantly less enamel demineralization at restoration margins than did amalgam. Clinical Implications. Resin-modified glass ionomer cement restorative material functions well for Class II restorations in primary molars and exhibits less recurrent caries at restoration margins than does amalgam.",
author = "Donly, {Kevin J.} and Adriana Segura and Michael Kanellis and Erickson, {Robert L.}",
year = "1999",
month = "10",
language = "English",
volume = "130",
pages = "1459--1466",
journal = "Journal of the American Dental Association",
issn = "0002-8177",
publisher = "American Dental Association",
number = "10",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Clinical performance and caries inhibition of resin-modified

T2 - Glass ionomer cement and amalgam restorations

AU - Donly, Kevin J.

AU - Segura, Adriana

AU - Kanellis, Michael

AU - Erickson, Robert L.

PY - 1999/10

Y1 - 1999/10

N2 - Background. The authors clinically examined two restorative materials to evaluate their effectiveness in Class II restorations in primary molars and their ability to inhibit recurrent caries. Methods. Forty subjects, each in need of two Class II restorations in primary molars, took part in this study. Each patient received one Class II restoration of resin-modified glass ionomer cement and one of amalgam. The authors evaluated the restorations at six-month, one-year, two-year and three-year recall appointments. On exfoliation, teeth with experimental restorations were retrieved and microscopically examined for inhibition of demineralization at restoration margins. Results. The results of the clinical evaluation demonstrated no significant differences between the resin-modified glass ionomer cement restorations and the amalgam restorations (P < .05). Polarized light microscopic examination of the returned teeth that were restored as a part of this study indicated that the resin-modified glass ionomer cement had significantly less enamel demineralization at restoration margins than did amalgam (P < .0001). Conclusions. The resin-modified glass ionomer cement functioned clinically as well as amalgam for Class II restorations in primary molars. However, the resin-modified glass ionomer exhibited significantly less enamel demineralization at restoration margins than did amalgam. Clinical Implications. Resin-modified glass ionomer cement restorative material functions well for Class II restorations in primary molars and exhibits less recurrent caries at restoration margins than does amalgam.

AB - Background. The authors clinically examined two restorative materials to evaluate their effectiveness in Class II restorations in primary molars and their ability to inhibit recurrent caries. Methods. Forty subjects, each in need of two Class II restorations in primary molars, took part in this study. Each patient received one Class II restoration of resin-modified glass ionomer cement and one of amalgam. The authors evaluated the restorations at six-month, one-year, two-year and three-year recall appointments. On exfoliation, teeth with experimental restorations were retrieved and microscopically examined for inhibition of demineralization at restoration margins. Results. The results of the clinical evaluation demonstrated no significant differences between the resin-modified glass ionomer cement restorations and the amalgam restorations (P < .05). Polarized light microscopic examination of the returned teeth that were restored as a part of this study indicated that the resin-modified glass ionomer cement had significantly less enamel demineralization at restoration margins than did amalgam (P < .0001). Conclusions. The resin-modified glass ionomer cement functioned clinically as well as amalgam for Class II restorations in primary molars. However, the resin-modified glass ionomer exhibited significantly less enamel demineralization at restoration margins than did amalgam. Clinical Implications. Resin-modified glass ionomer cement restorative material functions well for Class II restorations in primary molars and exhibits less recurrent caries at restoration margins than does amalgam.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0033210442&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0033210442&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Article

C2 - 10570589

AN - SCOPUS:0033210442

VL - 130

SP - 1459

EP - 1466

JO - Journal of the American Dental Association

JF - Journal of the American Dental Association

SN - 0002-8177

IS - 10

ER -