ISSN (Online): 2035-648X
Fast search with keyword
It provides easy access to our database
  
 

 
   
 
Lack of effect of fluoride releasing resin modified glass ionomer restorations on the contacting surface of adjacent primary molars. A clinical prospective study
 

Type:  Articles

Pubblication date:  09/2004

Authors:  N. Kotsanos*, P. Dionysopoulos**

Language:  English

Institution:  Dental School, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Greece *Department of Preventive Dentistry, Periodontology and Implant Biology **Department of Operative Dentistry

Publication:  European Journal of Paediatric Dentistry

Publisher:  Ariesdue Srl

Keywords:  Resin modified glass ionomer, Fluoride, Caries prevention, Clinical study

Full text:
[To open this file you have to be a registered user]

Email:  kotsanos@dent.auth.gr


Title:  Lack of effect of fluoride releasing resin modified glass ionomer restorations on the contacting surface of adjacent primary molars. A clinical prospective study

Abstract:  Aim This prospective, split mouth control study was planned to clinically evaluate shown short-term caries protection of glass ionomer cement on tooth enamel placed in contact to it, as a result of fluoride release. Study design The sample consisted of 83 children, aged 4-7 years, visiting a private practice during the years 1999 and 2000. All subjects met the following criteria: a Class II restoration was needed to a maxillary or mandibular primary molar on both sides of the mouth, the adjacent molars being radiographically diagnosed as sound or with caries in the relative proximal enamel only. Methods A resin modified glass ionomer restoration (Vitremer, 3M) was placed at the test side chosen by chance, while an amalgam or composite restoration was placed at the control side. Lesion initiation or progression adjacent to each restoration was categorized in 5 stages radiographically. Statistics The non-parametric Marginal Homogeneity test for paired observations was used. Results Differences between test and control were not statistically significant (p>0.1). Two years after restorations were placed bitewings were taken from 36 children (41 pairs of restorations). Uncontrolled brushing with fluoride dentifrice was reported. Mean fluoride treatments performed were 2.2, initial visit included. Lesion progression was: 14 pairs - no progression in either side; 9 pairs - equal progression by 1 stage in both sides; 9 pairs - progression by 1 stage at test side, no progression at control side; 6 pairs - progression by 1 stage at control side, no progression at test side; 3 pairs - various other combinations of scores. Conclusions Under these clinical conditions, fluoride release from Class II Vitremer restorations did not affect the rate of caries progression at the adjacent enamel of proximal primary teeth.

 
 
 
 
 
Home   |   Editorial Board   |   Referees   |   Current issue   |   Article submission   |   Links   |   Contact us

Editor in chief: dott. Luigi Paglia ejpd.editor@gmail.com
European Journal of Paediatric Dentistry | ISSN (Online): 2035-648X |
Privacy Policy | Term of use