This study compared the in vitro marginal integrity of open-sandwich restorations based on aged calcium silicate cement versus resin-modified glass ionomer cement. Class II cavities were prepared on 30 extracted human third molars. These teeth were randomly assigned to two groups (n = 10) to compare a new hydraulic calcium silicate cement designed for restorative dentistry (Biodentine, Septodont, Saint Maur des Fossés, France) with a resin-modified glass ionomer cement (Ionolux, Voco, Cuxhaven, Germany) in open-sandwich restorations covered with a light-cured composite. Positive (n = 5) and negative (n = 5) controls were included. The teeth simultaneously underwent thermocycling and mechanocycling using a fatigue cycling machine (1,440 cycles, 5-55°C; 86,400 cycles, 50 N/cm(2)). The specimens were then stored in phosphate-buffered saline to simulate aging. After 1 year, the teeth were submitted to glucose diffusion, and the resulting data were analyzed with a nonparametric Mann-Whitney test. The Biodentine group and the Ionolux group presented glucose concentrations of 0.074 ± 0.035 g/L and 0.080 ± 0.032 g/L, respectively. No statistically significant differences were detected between the two groups. Therefore, the calcium silicate-based material performs as well as the resin-modified glass ionomer cement in open-sandwich restorations.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3238369 | PMC |
http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2012/105863 | DOI Listing |
Clin Oral Investig
May 2024
Department of Restorative Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, Gazi University, Bişkek St. 1.St. Number:8, Çankaya, Ankara, 06490, Turkey.
Objectives: This study aimed to evaluate the effect of restorations made with a glass-hybrid restorative system (GHRS), a high-viscosity glass ionomer restorative material (HVGIC), a high-viscosity bulk-fill composite resin (HVB), a flowable bulk-fill composite resin (FB), and a nanohybrid composite resin (NH), which are commonly preferred in clinical applications on the fracture resistance of teeth in-vitro.
Materials And Methods: One hundred intact human premolar teeth were included in the study. The teeth were randomly divided into ten groups (n = 10).
J Esthet Restor Dent
April 2024
Conservative Dentistry Department, Faculty of Dentistry, Mansoura University, Mansoura, Egypt.
Objectives: To provide a 3-year follow-up of previously treated patients to assess and compare the periodontal responses and clinical performance of proximal subgingival open sandwich restorations.
Materials And Methods: Ninety-five adults participated in the study, with a combined total of 120 compound Class II cavities. These cavities had gingival margins located below the CEJ.
Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent
March 2024
This study aimed to evaluate the periodontal responses of subgingival proximal margins elevated using different restorative materials. A total of 120 proximal cavities with dentin/cementum gingival margins were elevated using one of four materials (resin-modified glass ionomer, glass hybrid, flowable bulk-fill resin composite, or bioactive ionic resin) and completed with the same overlaying resin composite. At 2 weeks (baseline), 6 months, 1 year, and 2 years postrestoration, periodontal parameters and the radiographic distance between the restoration margin and bone crest were evaluated.
View Article and Find Full Text PDFDent Mater
September 2023
Department of Dentistry, Radboud University Medical Center, Radboud Institute for Health Sciences, Philips van Leydenlaan 25, PO Box 9101, 6500 HB Nijmegen, the Netherlands.
Objectives: To compare clinical performance of resin composite posterior Class-II restorations placed with etch-and-rinse adhesive or open sandwich technique using glass-ionomer cement.
Methods: Data on Class II restorations placed by one dentist between 1990 and 2016 were collected from patient files, including caries risk, tooth related variables, applied materials and dates of last check-up visit and restoration placement. Open sandwich restorations were placed before 2001, while after 2001, a total-etch technique using etch-and-rinse 3-step adhesive was used when placing a Class II composite restoration.
Oper Dent
September 2023
Frederick Rueggeberg, DDS, MS, Department of Restorative Sciences, Dental College of Georgia, Augusta University, Augusta, GA, USA.
Background: The open sandwich technique is a reliable alternative to amalgam placement in deep proximal box preparations, where proper isolation and enamel bonding may not be possible. It is often difficult to prepare the box for composite placement without affecting the resin-modified glass ionomer (RMGI) that has been placed in the gingival portion. We hypothesized that RMGI surfaces that are roughened or those that use all steps in the manufacturing bonding protocol, including the priming solution, applied before placing a bonded composite increment, would have greater composite/RMGI shear bond strength.
View Article and Find Full Text PDFEnter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!