Cargando…

One year comparative clinical evaluation of EQUIA with resin-modified glass ionomer and a nanohybrid composite in noncarious cervical lesions

AIMS: Comparative evaluation of EQUIA with a resin-modified glass ionomer cement (RMGIC; GC Gold Label glass ionomer light cured universal restorative cement) and a nanohybrid composite (Tetric N-Ceram) in noncarious cervical lesions (NCCLs). BACKGROUND: To establish the most suitable material for t...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Vaid, Deepa Sunil, Shah, Nimisha Chinmay, Bilgi, Priyanka Shripad
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Medknow Publications & Media Pvt Ltd 2015
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4693316/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26752837
http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/0972-0707.168805
Descripción
Sumario:AIMS: Comparative evaluation of EQUIA with a resin-modified glass ionomer cement (RMGIC; GC Gold Label glass ionomer light cured universal restorative cement) and a nanohybrid composite (Tetric N-Ceram) in noncarious cervical lesions (NCCLs). BACKGROUND: To establish the most suitable material for the restoration of NCCLs. SETTINGS AND DESIGN: In vivo study. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Eighty-seven NCCLs were randomly restored with EQUIA, a RMGIC, and a nanohybrid composite. Clinical evaluation of the restorations was done following the Unites States Public Health criteria by a single-blinded investigator. Data were formulated, and statistical analysis was done by Chi-square test. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS USED: Chi-square test. RESULTS: No significant difference was found between EQUIA, RMGIC, and nanohybrid composite at 1-month, at 6 months, and at 1-year (P > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: EQUIA, resin-modified glass ionomer, and nanohybrid composite performed equally at 1-month, 6 months, and 1-year follow-up periods.