Oper Dent. 2022 Jul 1;47(4):382-391. doi: 10.2341/21-016-C.
ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this in vivo study was to evaluate the clinical one-year follow-up of a silica- and flouroapatite-reinforced glass carbomer filling material as compared to a resin composite restorative material.
METHODS AND MATERIALS: In this study, a total of 100 restorations were performed. Caries were removed conventionally with diamond burs. Half of the restorations were restored with nanocomposite resin (TEP) (Tokuyama Estelite, Tokuyama Dental, Japan) and the other half were restored with glass carbomer (GC) material (GCP Dental, The Netherlands). Each restorative material was applied according to the manufacturer’s instructions. Restorations were evaluated with modified USPHS criteria at the end of the first week, 6 months, and 12 months. Data were analyzed using Fisher’s Exact Chi-Square test, Fisher Freeman Halton Test, and Continuity (Yates) Correction. The Wilcoxon sign test was used for intra-group comparisons of the parameters.
RESULTS: When the filling materials were compared with one another, a statistically significant difference was observed in the 12th month on the marginal discoloration. A statistically significant difference was observed between the two materials in the 6th month on the marginal adaptation (p<0.05).
CONCLUSIONS: In view of these results, there is a need to improve the physical properties of the GC filling material in further in vivo studies.
PMID:36001813 | DOI:10.2341/21-016-C
