Cargando…

Clinical evaluation of a new art material: Nanoparticulated resin-modified glass ionomer cement

CONTEXT: The success of atraumatic restorative treatment (ART) technique depends on the restorative material; hence, clinical studies with various materials are necessary. AIM: The aim of the present study was to clinically evaluate and compare the nanoionomer and high-viscosity glass ionomer using...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Konde, S., Raj, S., Jaiswal, D.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Medknow Publications & Media Pvt Ltd 2012
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3894086/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24478966
http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/2231-0762.109361
Descripción
Sumario:CONTEXT: The success of atraumatic restorative treatment (ART) technique depends on the restorative material; hence, clinical studies with various materials are necessary. AIM: The aim of the present study was to clinically evaluate and compare the nanoionomer and high-viscosity glass ionomer using United States Public Health Services (USPHS) Modified Cvar/Ryge Criteria with ART approach. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Two primary molars in 50 healthy children aged between 5 and 8 years were selected for the study. The teeth were treated with ART and divided into two groups. The group 1 teeth were restored with nanoionomer (Ketac Nano 100 3M ESPE) and group 2 with high-viscosity glass ionomer cement (HVGIC), (Fuji IX GC). Each restoration was evaluated using the USPHS Modified Cvar/Ryge Criteria at baseline and 6 months’ and 12 months’ time interval. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS USED: Chi-squared (χ(2)) test. RESULTS: Nanoionomer was significantly better than HVGIC with respect to color match at baseline, 6 months, and 12 months (P<0.001). Nanoionomers were also significantly better than HVGIC in case of cavosurface marginal discoloration and marginal adaptation (P<0.001) at 6 months and 12 months. There was no significant difference between the two materials with respect to secondary caries at 6 months (P>0.05), but at 12 months, nanoionomer was statistically better than HVGIC (P<0.05). There was no statistical significant difference with respect to anatomical form and postoperative sensitivity (P>0.05). CONCLUSION: The results indicate that nanoionomer can be a successful alternative restorative material for use with ART technique.