Resin-modified and conventional glass ionomer restorations in primary teeth: 8-year results

Objectives. To compare the longevity and cariostatic effects of resin-modified (RMGIC) and conventional glass ionomer (GIC) restorations in primary teeth in the Danish Public Dental Health Service. Methods. The sample consisted of 543 RMGIC and 451 GIC restorations in all cavity types in the primary...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Journal of dentistry 2004-05, Vol.32 (4), p.285-294
Hauptverfasser: Qvist, V., Manscher, E., Teglers, P.T.
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 294
container_issue 4
container_start_page 285
container_title Journal of dentistry
container_volume 32
creator Qvist, V.
Manscher, E.
Teglers, P.T.
description Objectives. To compare the longevity and cariostatic effects of resin-modified (RMGIC) and conventional glass ionomer (GIC) restorations in primary teeth in the Danish Public Dental Health Service. Methods. The sample consisted of 543 RMGIC and 451 GIC restorations in all cavity types in the primary teeth of 640 children, aged 3.0–17.5 years. The restorations were in contact with 480 unrestored surfaces. The restorations and the adjacent surfaces were followed until exfoliation/extraction of the teeth, repair/replacement of restorations or operative treatment of adjacent surfaces. Survival analyses supplied with multivariate analyses were performed to assess the influence of different factors on the longevity of restorations, occurrence of prevalent failures, and caries treatment of adjacent surfaces. Results. After 8 years, 2% of the restorations were still in function and 37% of the RMGIC and 44% of the GIC restorations had been repaired or replaced. Fracture and loss of retention predominated as the reasons for failure of restorations in both materials. The 50% survival time for restorations was 55 months for RMGIC and 48 months for GIC ( p=0.01). Progression of caries lesions required operative treatment on 20% of the surfaces in contact with RMGIC and on 14% of surfaces adjacent to GIC restorations. The 75% survival time was 35 months for surfaces in contact with both materials ( p=0.37). Conclusions. RMGIC and GIC showed similar cariostatic effects on restored teeth and adjacent tooth surfaces, but RMGIC should be preferred for class II restorations in the primary dentition, and class III/V restorations should be made in GIC due to enhanced longevity.
doi_str_mv 10.1016/j.jdent.2004.01.001
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_71788091</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>S0300571204000107</els_id><sourcerecordid>2734776551</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c383t-70c19afdf97b4fd15df7e6d01409dde03246a2ffcda0714faadb2ad630678bf3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kE1r3DAQhkVJ6G7S_oJCMAR6szNjeS270ENYmg8IBEoOhR6EVho1Mra1lexA_n21H1DIIbpISM-8o3kY-4JQIGB91RWdoXEqSoCqACwA8ANbYiPaHEX964QtgQPkK4Hlgp3F2EECoWw_sgWuYMVbxCX7_ZOiG_PBG2cdmUyNJtN-fEnBzo-qz_70KsYsnf1AIQsUJx_U7i1djtk2uEGF12wimp6_ZU3-SmpPzf0UP7FTq_pIn4_7OXu6-fG0vssfHm_v19cPueYNn3IBGltljW3FprIGV8YKqg1gBa0xBLysalVaq40CgZVVymxKZWoOtWg2lp-zr4fYbfB_5_RBObioqe_VSH6OUqBoGmgxgZdvwM7PIQ0ZJQLnJe5WoviB0sHHGMjK45AJkjvxspN78XInXgLKJD5VXRyz581A5n_N0XQCvh8ASiZeHAUZtaNRk3GB9CSNd-82-AfQipaG</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1033211111</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Resin-modified and conventional glass ionomer restorations in primary teeth: 8-year results</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals</source><creator>Qvist, V. ; Manscher, E. ; Teglers, P.T.</creator><creatorcontrib>Qvist, V. ; Manscher, E. ; Teglers, P.T.</creatorcontrib><description>Objectives. To compare the longevity and cariostatic effects of resin-modified (RMGIC) and conventional glass ionomer (GIC) restorations in primary teeth in the Danish Public Dental Health Service. Methods. The sample consisted of 543 RMGIC and 451 GIC restorations in all cavity types in the primary teeth of 640 children, aged 3.0–17.5 years. The restorations were in contact with 480 unrestored surfaces. The restorations and the adjacent surfaces were followed until exfoliation/extraction of the teeth, repair/replacement of restorations or operative treatment of adjacent surfaces. Survival analyses supplied with multivariate analyses were performed to assess the influence of different factors on the longevity of restorations, occurrence of prevalent failures, and caries treatment of adjacent surfaces. Results. After 8 years, 2% of the restorations were still in function and 37% of the RMGIC and 44% of the GIC restorations had been repaired or replaced. Fracture and loss of retention predominated as the reasons for failure of restorations in both materials. The 50% survival time for restorations was 55 months for RMGIC and 48 months for GIC ( p=0.01). Progression of caries lesions required operative treatment on 20% of the surfaces in contact with RMGIC and on 14% of surfaces adjacent to GIC restorations. The 75% survival time was 35 months for surfaces in contact with both materials ( p=0.37). Conclusions. RMGIC and GIC showed similar cariostatic effects on restored teeth and adjacent tooth surfaces, but RMGIC should be preferred for class II restorations in the primary dentition, and class III/V restorations should be made in GIC due to enhanced longevity.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0300-5712</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1879-176X</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/j.jdent.2004.01.001</identifier><identifier>PMID: 15053911</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>England: Elsevier Ltd</publisher><subject>Adolescent ; Cariostatic Agents - chemistry ; Cariostatic effects ; Child ; Child, Preschool ; Clinical trial ; Dental Bonding ; Dental Caries - therapy ; Dental Prosthesis Repair ; Dental Restoration Failure ; Dental Restoration, Permanent - classification ; Dental restorations ; Dentistry ; Disease Progression ; Follow-Up Studies ; Glass ionomer cement ; Glass Ionomer Cements - chemistry ; Humans ; Long-term behaviour ; Multivariate Analysis ; Pedodontics ; Resin Cements - chemistry ; Resin-modified glass ionomer ; Retreatment ; Surface Properties ; Survival Analysis ; Tooth Exfoliation ; Tooth Extraction ; Tooth, Deciduous - pathology</subject><ispartof>Journal of dentistry, 2004-05, Vol.32 (4), p.285-294</ispartof><rights>2004 Elsevier Ltd</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c383t-70c19afdf97b4fd15df7e6d01409dde03246a2ffcda0714faadb2ad630678bf3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c383t-70c19afdf97b4fd15df7e6d01409dde03246a2ffcda0714faadb2ad630678bf3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0300571204000107$$EHTML$$P50$$Gelsevier$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,3537,27901,27902,65306</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15053911$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Qvist, V.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Manscher, E.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Teglers, P.T.</creatorcontrib><title>Resin-modified and conventional glass ionomer restorations in primary teeth: 8-year results</title><title>Journal of dentistry</title><addtitle>J Dent</addtitle><description>Objectives. To compare the longevity and cariostatic effects of resin-modified (RMGIC) and conventional glass ionomer (GIC) restorations in primary teeth in the Danish Public Dental Health Service. Methods. The sample consisted of 543 RMGIC and 451 GIC restorations in all cavity types in the primary teeth of 640 children, aged 3.0–17.5 years. The restorations were in contact with 480 unrestored surfaces. The restorations and the adjacent surfaces were followed until exfoliation/extraction of the teeth, repair/replacement of restorations or operative treatment of adjacent surfaces. Survival analyses supplied with multivariate analyses were performed to assess the influence of different factors on the longevity of restorations, occurrence of prevalent failures, and caries treatment of adjacent surfaces. Results. After 8 years, 2% of the restorations were still in function and 37% of the RMGIC and 44% of the GIC restorations had been repaired or replaced. Fracture and loss of retention predominated as the reasons for failure of restorations in both materials. The 50% survival time for restorations was 55 months for RMGIC and 48 months for GIC ( p=0.01). Progression of caries lesions required operative treatment on 20% of the surfaces in contact with RMGIC and on 14% of surfaces adjacent to GIC restorations. The 75% survival time was 35 months for surfaces in contact with both materials ( p=0.37). Conclusions. RMGIC and GIC showed similar cariostatic effects on restored teeth and adjacent tooth surfaces, but RMGIC should be preferred for class II restorations in the primary dentition, and class III/V restorations should be made in GIC due to enhanced longevity.</description><subject>Adolescent</subject><subject>Cariostatic Agents - chemistry</subject><subject>Cariostatic effects</subject><subject>Child</subject><subject>Child, Preschool</subject><subject>Clinical trial</subject><subject>Dental Bonding</subject><subject>Dental Caries - therapy</subject><subject>Dental Prosthesis Repair</subject><subject>Dental Restoration Failure</subject><subject>Dental Restoration, Permanent - classification</subject><subject>Dental restorations</subject><subject>Dentistry</subject><subject>Disease Progression</subject><subject>Follow-Up Studies</subject><subject>Glass ionomer cement</subject><subject>Glass Ionomer Cements - chemistry</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Long-term behaviour</subject><subject>Multivariate Analysis</subject><subject>Pedodontics</subject><subject>Resin Cements - chemistry</subject><subject>Resin-modified glass ionomer</subject><subject>Retreatment</subject><subject>Surface Properties</subject><subject>Survival Analysis</subject><subject>Tooth Exfoliation</subject><subject>Tooth Extraction</subject><subject>Tooth, Deciduous - pathology</subject><issn>0300-5712</issn><issn>1879-176X</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2004</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNp9kE1r3DAQhkVJ6G7S_oJCMAR6szNjeS270ENYmg8IBEoOhR6EVho1Mra1lexA_n21H1DIIbpISM-8o3kY-4JQIGB91RWdoXEqSoCqACwA8ANbYiPaHEX964QtgQPkK4Hlgp3F2EECoWw_sgWuYMVbxCX7_ZOiG_PBG2cdmUyNJtN-fEnBzo-qz_70KsYsnf1AIQsUJx_U7i1djtk2uEGF12wimp6_ZU3-SmpPzf0UP7FTq_pIn4_7OXu6-fG0vssfHm_v19cPueYNn3IBGltljW3FprIGV8YKqg1gBa0xBLysalVaq40CgZVVymxKZWoOtWg2lp-zr4fYbfB_5_RBObioqe_VSH6OUqBoGmgxgZdvwM7PIQ0ZJQLnJe5WoviB0sHHGMjK45AJkjvxspN78XInXgLKJD5VXRyz581A5n_N0XQCvh8ASiZeHAUZtaNRk3GB9CSNd-82-AfQipaG</recordid><startdate>20040501</startdate><enddate>20040501</enddate><creator>Qvist, V.</creator><creator>Manscher, E.</creator><creator>Teglers, P.T.</creator><general>Elsevier Ltd</general><general>Elsevier Limited</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7QF</scope><scope>7QP</scope><scope>7QQ</scope><scope>7SE</scope><scope>7SR</scope><scope>7TA</scope><scope>7TB</scope><scope>8BQ</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>F28</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>H8G</scope><scope>JG9</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20040501</creationdate><title>Resin-modified and conventional glass ionomer restorations in primary teeth: 8-year results</title><author>Qvist, V. ; Manscher, E. ; Teglers, P.T.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c383t-70c19afdf97b4fd15df7e6d01409dde03246a2ffcda0714faadb2ad630678bf3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2004</creationdate><topic>Adolescent</topic><topic>Cariostatic Agents - chemistry</topic><topic>Cariostatic effects</topic><topic>Child</topic><topic>Child, Preschool</topic><topic>Clinical trial</topic><topic>Dental Bonding</topic><topic>Dental Caries - therapy</topic><topic>Dental Prosthesis Repair</topic><topic>Dental Restoration Failure</topic><topic>Dental Restoration, Permanent - classification</topic><topic>Dental restorations</topic><topic>Dentistry</topic><topic>Disease Progression</topic><topic>Follow-Up Studies</topic><topic>Glass ionomer cement</topic><topic>Glass Ionomer Cements - chemistry</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Long-term behaviour</topic><topic>Multivariate Analysis</topic><topic>Pedodontics</topic><topic>Resin Cements - chemistry</topic><topic>Resin-modified glass ionomer</topic><topic>Retreatment</topic><topic>Surface Properties</topic><topic>Survival Analysis</topic><topic>Tooth Exfoliation</topic><topic>Tooth Extraction</topic><topic>Tooth, Deciduous - pathology</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Qvist, V.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Manscher, E.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Teglers, P.T.</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Aluminium Industry Abstracts</collection><collection>Calcium &amp; Calcified Tissue Abstracts</collection><collection>Ceramic Abstracts</collection><collection>Corrosion Abstracts</collection><collection>Engineered Materials Abstracts</collection><collection>Materials Business File</collection><collection>Mechanical &amp; Transportation Engineering Abstracts</collection><collection>METADEX</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>ANTE: Abstracts in New Technology &amp; Engineering</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>Copper Technical Reference Library</collection><collection>Materials Research Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Health &amp; Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Journal of dentistry</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Qvist, V.</au><au>Manscher, E.</au><au>Teglers, P.T.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Resin-modified and conventional glass ionomer restorations in primary teeth: 8-year results</atitle><jtitle>Journal of dentistry</jtitle><addtitle>J Dent</addtitle><date>2004-05-01</date><risdate>2004</risdate><volume>32</volume><issue>4</issue><spage>285</spage><epage>294</epage><pages>285-294</pages><issn>0300-5712</issn><eissn>1879-176X</eissn><abstract>Objectives. To compare the longevity and cariostatic effects of resin-modified (RMGIC) and conventional glass ionomer (GIC) restorations in primary teeth in the Danish Public Dental Health Service. Methods. The sample consisted of 543 RMGIC and 451 GIC restorations in all cavity types in the primary teeth of 640 children, aged 3.0–17.5 years. The restorations were in contact with 480 unrestored surfaces. The restorations and the adjacent surfaces were followed until exfoliation/extraction of the teeth, repair/replacement of restorations or operative treatment of adjacent surfaces. Survival analyses supplied with multivariate analyses were performed to assess the influence of different factors on the longevity of restorations, occurrence of prevalent failures, and caries treatment of adjacent surfaces. Results. After 8 years, 2% of the restorations were still in function and 37% of the RMGIC and 44% of the GIC restorations had been repaired or replaced. Fracture and loss of retention predominated as the reasons for failure of restorations in both materials. The 50% survival time for restorations was 55 months for RMGIC and 48 months for GIC ( p=0.01). Progression of caries lesions required operative treatment on 20% of the surfaces in contact with RMGIC and on 14% of surfaces adjacent to GIC restorations. The 75% survival time was 35 months for surfaces in contact with both materials ( p=0.37). Conclusions. RMGIC and GIC showed similar cariostatic effects on restored teeth and adjacent tooth surfaces, but RMGIC should be preferred for class II restorations in the primary dentition, and class III/V restorations should be made in GIC due to enhanced longevity.</abstract><cop>England</cop><pub>Elsevier Ltd</pub><pmid>15053911</pmid><doi>10.1016/j.jdent.2004.01.001</doi><tpages>10</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0300-5712
ispartof Journal of dentistry, 2004-05, Vol.32 (4), p.285-294
issn 0300-5712
1879-176X
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_71788091
source MEDLINE; Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals
subjects Adolescent
Cariostatic Agents - chemistry
Cariostatic effects
Child
Child, Preschool
Clinical trial
Dental Bonding
Dental Caries - therapy
Dental Prosthesis Repair
Dental Restoration Failure
Dental Restoration, Permanent - classification
Dental restorations
Dentistry
Disease Progression
Follow-Up Studies
Glass ionomer cement
Glass Ionomer Cements - chemistry
Humans
Long-term behaviour
Multivariate Analysis
Pedodontics
Resin Cements - chemistry
Resin-modified glass ionomer
Retreatment
Surface Properties
Survival Analysis
Tooth Exfoliation
Tooth Extraction
Tooth, Deciduous - pathology
title Resin-modified and conventional glass ionomer restorations in primary teeth: 8-year results
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-08T21%3A34%3A02IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Resin-modified%20and%20conventional%20glass%20ionomer%20restorations%20in%20primary%20teeth:%208-year%20results&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20dentistry&rft.au=Qvist,%20V.&rft.date=2004-05-01&rft.volume=32&rft.issue=4&rft.spage=285&rft.epage=294&rft.pages=285-294&rft.issn=0300-5712&rft.eissn=1879-176X&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/j.jdent.2004.01.001&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2734776551%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1033211111&rft_id=info:pmid/15053911&rft_els_id=S0300571204000107&rfr_iscdi=true