Clinical performance of a resin-modified glass-ionomer and two polyacid-modified resin composites in cervical lesions restorations: 1-Year follow-up

Journal of Oral Rehabilitation

Volumn 31, Issue 3, 2004, Pages 251-257

  Chinelatti, M A ^a   Ramos, R P ^a   Chimello, D T ^a   Palma Dibb, R G ^a,b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF SÃO PAULO   (Brazil)

^b Faculdade Odontol Ribeirao P   (Brazil)

Author keywords

Clinical evaluation; Glass ionomer cement; Resin composite

Indexed keywords

ACID; GLASS IONOMER; RESIN;

ADULT; ARTICLE; CHEMICAL MODIFICATION; CHI SQUARE DISTRIBUTION; CLINICAL ARTICLE; COMPARATIVE STUDY; COMPOSITE MATERIAL; CONTROLLED STUDY; DENTAL CARIES; DENTAL SURGERY; EVALUATION; FEMALE; FOLLOW UP; HEALTH SERVICE; HUMAN; MALE; MCNEMAR TEST; PATIENT SELECTION; SCORING SYSTEM; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS; SURFACE PROPERTY; TOOTH COLOR; TOOTH DISEASE;

EID: 1842829892     PISSN: 0305182X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1046/j.0305-182X.2003.01221.x     Document Type: Article

References (28)

1. Wilson AD, Kent BE. A new translucent cement for dentistry. Br Dent J. 1972;132:133.
2. Barnes DM, Blank LW. A clinical evaluation of a resin-modified glass-ionomer restorative material. J Am Dent Assoc. 1995;126:1245.
3. Sidhu SK, Watson TF. Resin modified glass-ionomer materials. A status report of American Journal of Dentistry. Am J Dent. 1995;8:59.
4. Abdalla AI, Alhadainy HÁ, Garcia-Godoi F. Clinical evaluation of glass-ionomer and compomers in class V carious lesions. Am J Dent. 1997;10:19.
5. Van Dijken JWV. 3-Year clinical evaluation of a compomer, a resin-modified glass-ionomer and a resin composite in class III restorations. Am J Dent. 1996;9:184.
6. Tarim B, Hafez AA. Biocompatibility of compomer restorative systems on nonexposed dental pulps of primate teeth. Oper Dent. 1997;22:149.
7. Ryge G. Standardization of clinical investigators for studies of restorative materials. Swed Dent J. 1981;5:235.
8. Neo J, Chew CL, Yap A. Clinical evaluation of tooth colored materials in cervical lesions. Am J Dent. 1996;9:15.
9. Matis BA, Cochran M, Carlson T. Longevity of glass-ionomer restorative materials. Results of a 10-year evaluation. Quintessence Int. 1996;27:373.
10. Feilzer AJ, Kakaboura AI, de Gee AJ, Davidson CL. The influence of water sorption on the development of setting shrinkage stress in traditional and resin-modified glass-ionomer cements. Dent Mater. 1995;4:111.
11. Attin T, Buchalla W, Kielbassa AM, Hellwig E. Curing shrinkage and volumetric changes of resin-modified glass-ionomer restorative materials. Dent Mater. 1995;11:359.
12. Mc Cabe JF. Resin-modified glass-ionomers. In: Abstracts. Proceedings of the 1st European Union Conference on Glass-Ionomers, May 14-16. Conventry, UK: University of Warwick; 1996: 24.
13. Mc Lean JW. Dentinal bonding agents versus glass-ionomer cements. Quintessence Int. 1996;27:659.
14. Yap AU. Resin-modified glass-ionomer: a comparison of water sorption characteristics. Biomaterials. 1996;17:1897.
15. Gladys S, Van Meerbeek B, Lambrechts P, Vanherle G. Marginal adaptation and retention of a glass-ionomer, resin-modified glass-ionomers and a polyacid-modified resin composite in cervical class-V lesions. Dent Mater. 1998;14:294.
16. Brännström M. Communication between the oral cavity and the dental pulp associated with restorative treatment. Oper Dent. 1984;9:57.
17. Sjödin L, Uusitalo M, Van Dijken JWV. Resin modified glass-ionomer cements. In vitro microleakage in direct class V and class II sandwich restorations. Swed Dent J. 1996;20:77.
18. Ferrari M, Davidson CL. Sealing capacity of a resin-modified glass-ionomer and resin composite placed in vivo class 5 restorations. Oper Dent. 1996;21:69.
19. Palma Dibb RG, Amato MF, Chinelatti MA, Nonaka TN, Ramos RP. In vitro evaluation of marginal microleakage on class V restorations of esthetic materials. Rev Odontol UNESP. 2001;30:75.
20. Kimishima T, Shibaoka N, Enemoto H. Water expansion and microleakage of glass-ionomer cement. J Dent Res. 1996;75: 73.
21. Uno S, Tanaka T, Inoue S, Sano H. The influence of configuration factors on cavity adaptation in compomer restorations. Dent Mater J. 1999;18:19.
22. Willems G, Lambrechts P, Braem M, Vuylsteke-Wauters M, Vanherle G. The surface roughness of enamel-to-enamel contact areas compared with the intrinsic roughness of dental resin composites. J Dent Res. 1991;70:1299.
23. Gladys S, Van Meerbeek B. Comparative physico-mechanical characterization of new hybrid restorative materials with conventional glass-ionomer and resin composite restorative materials. J Dent Res. 1997;76:883.
24. Paulillo LA, Coradazzi JL, Serra MC, Freitas SF. Staining of glass-ionomer cements. Am J Dent. 1994;7:345.
25. Gladys S, Van Meerbeek B, Lambrechts P, Vanherle G. Evaluation of esthetic parameters of resin-modified glass-ionomer materials and a polyacid-modified resin composite in class V cervical lesions. Quintessence Int. 1999;30:607.
26. Tyas MJ. Clinical evaluation of a polyacid-modified resin composite (compomer). Oper Dent. 1998;23:77.
27. Attin T, Trett A. Toothbrushing abrasion of polyacid-modified composites in neutral and acidic buffer solutions. J Prosthet Dent. 1998;80:148.
28. Chersoni S, Lorenzi R, Ferrieri P. Laboratory evaluation of compomers in class V restorations. Am J Dent. 1997;10:147.