Clinical Evaluation of Resin Composite and Resin Modified Glass Ionomer in Class III Restorations of Primary Maxillary Incisors: A Comparative In Vivo Study

JOURNAL TITLE: International Journal of Clinical Pediatric Dentistry

Author
1. Usha Mohan Das
2. Deepak Viswanath
ISSN
0974-7052
DOI
10.5005/jp-journals-10005-1024
Volume
2
Issue
2
Publishing Year
2009
Pages
7
Author Affiliations
    1. Principal, Professor and Head, Department of Pedodontics and Preventive Dentistry,VS Dental College and Hospital, Bengaluru Karnataka, India
    1. Department of Pedodontics and Preventive Dentistry, VS Dental College and Hospital, KR Road VV Puram, Bengaluru-560004, Karnataka, India
  • Article keywords
    Resin-modified glass ionomer cement, composite resin

    Abstract

    Restoration of primary teeth continues to be an important facet of restorative dentistry. In comparison to restorations in permanent dentition, the longevity of those in primary teeth is significantly different for all materials. This makes the assessment of these fillings as a separate group meaningful. As there is lack of supporting clinical data with regard to the restoration of primary incisors, it would be judicious to consider why this is so and determine if studies can be designed to gain new information. The purpose of this study was therefore to evaluate and compare the clinical efficacy of composite resins and resin-modified glass ionomer cement restorations of primary incisors, over a period of one year. Methods: The study group consisted of 40 patients (3½-5 ½ years of age) with at least one pair of similar sized lesions in the middle1/3 of the same proximal surface of contralateral primary maxillary incisors. Composite resin and resinmodified glass ionomer cement restorations were placed in primary maxillary incisors using split-mouth design. The restorations were evaluated at different intervals of 3,6,9, months and 1 year using Ryge's criteria. Data obtained was analyzed using Mann-Whitney test Results: The results revealed no statistical significance in the difference of clinical characteristics between the two restorative materials. Interpretation and conclusion: (1) Resin-modified glass ionomer cement and composite resin restorative materials showed acceptable clinical performance after 1 year in primary teeth. (2) Resin-modified glass ionomer cement and composite resin restorative materials functioned well as class III restorative materials in primary teeth.

    © 2019 Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.   |   All Rights Reserved