Comparative Evaluation of Clinical Performance of Three Different Glass Hybrid Restorations in High Caries Risk Patients: A Randomized Control Trial

R. I. Abdel Fattah; W. E. Jamil; A. F. Abo Elezz

doi:10.3889/oamjms.2022.10354

Authors

R. I. Abdel Fattah Department of Operative Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, Suez Canal University, Ismailia, Egypt
W. E. Jamil Department of Operative Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, Suez Canal University, Ismailia, Egypt
A. F. Abo Elezz Department of Operative Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, Suez Canal University, Ismailia, Egypt

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.3889/oamjms.2022.10354

Keywords:

Randomized control trial, Glass hybrid restorations, High caries risk patients, Ketac Nano, Activa bioactive, Cention N

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Finding a restorative material that can survive and be quite resistant in high caries risk patients is very challenging, that’s why three different glass hybrid restorations were tested for their clinical performance for one year in high caries risk patients.

AIM: This study was conducted to evaluate the clinical performance of three glass hybrid restorations; nano-ionomer restoration (Ketac Nano), bioactive ionomer glass fillers (Activa bioactive), and alkasite restorative material (Cention N) in Class I cavity in high caries risk patients after 1 year according to the FDI criteria for the assessment of dental restorations.

METHODS AND MATERIALS: Fifteen cooperative patients, males or females with high caries risk who were approving to participate in the trial of age range 18–50 years, were selected in the present study. Every patient should have three or more posterior teeth having occlusal pits and fissure carious lesions. Three Class I cavities were performed for every patient and restored randomly with Ketac Nano™, Activa Bioactive™, and Cention N™. All three restorations were applied, according to the manufacturers’ instructions. Restorations were evaluated at baseline (immediately), after 3 months, 6 months, and 1 year by two blinded assessors using FDI criteria for the assessment of dental restorations measuring functional properties.

STATISTICAL ANALYSIS USED: Evaluation of functional properties was checked by Kruskal–Wallis non-parametric test statistics at 0.05 level. Collected data were analyzed for descriptive statistics both graphically and mathematically in terms of frequency, percent, median, interquartile range, and mean and standard deviations. Differences in evaluations between materials (M1, M2, and M3) were carried out by Chi-squared test at 0.05 level. However, differences between follow-up times (T0, T1, T2, and T3) were carried out by Friedman’s test for related samples for non-parametric data. Variations caused by the three materials and follow-up times in addition to interaction between them were assessed by repeated measures ANOVA for ranked data at significance levels of 0.05. Data analysis was carried out using computer software Statistical Package for the Social Sciences SPSS (IBM-SPSSver.23.0 for MacOS).

RESULTS: Results of functional properties of the three restorative materials revealed that at baseline (T0) and 3 months (T1), all cases (100%) of the three materials were clinically successful, with no significant difference between them. However, after 6 months, 58 cases (97%) of M1, 56 cases (93%) of M2, and 54 cases (90%) of M3 were clinically successful, with non-significant difference between them. Moreover, after 12 months, 55 cases (91.6%) of M1, 56 cases (93%) of M2, and 53 cases (88%) of M3 were clinically successful, with non-significant difference between them.

CONCLUSION: In the purpose of restoring posterior permanent teeth in high caries risk patients, all three restorative materials demonstrated acceptable clinical performance in Class I cavities with the same success rate.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Metrics

Metrics Loading ...

Plum Analytics Artifact Widget Block

References

Lohbauer U. Dental glass ionomer cements as permanent filling materials? Properties, limitations and future trends. J Mater. 2010;10(3):76-96. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma3010076 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/ma3010076

Demarco FF, Collares K, Correa MB, Cenci MS, Moraes RR and Opdam NJ. Longivity of posterior composite restorations: Not only a matter of materials. J Dent Mater. 2012;28(10):87-101. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2011.09.003 PMid:22192253 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2011.09.003

Almuhaiza M. Glass ionomer cements in restorative dentistry: Acritical appraisal. J Contemp Dent Pract. 2016;17(4):331-6. https://doi.org/10.5005/jp-journals-10024-1850 PMid:27340169 DOI: https://doi.org/10.5005/jp-journals-10024-1850

Perdigão J, Dutra-Corrêa M, Saraceni SH, Ciaramicoli MT, Kiyan VH. Randomized clinical trial of two resin-modified glass ionomer materials: 1-year results. Oper Dent. 2012;37(6):591-601. http://doi.org/10.2341/11-415-C PMid:22770485 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2341/11-415-C

Garoushi S, Vallittu PK, Lassila L. Characterization of fluoride releasing restorative dental materials. Dent Mater J. 2018;37(2):293-300. http://doi.org/10.4012/dmj.2017-161 PMid:29279547 DOI: https://doi.org/10.4012/dmj.2017-161

Bhadra D, Shah NC, Rao AS, Dedania MS, Bajpai N. A 1-year comparative evaluation of clinical performance of nanohybrid composite with Activa™ bioactive composite in Class II carious lesion: A randomized control study. J Conserv Dent. 2019;22(1):92-6. https://doi.org/10.4103/jcd.jcd_309_21 PMid:30820090 DOI: https://doi.org/10.4103/jcd.jcd_309_21

Kumar SA, Ajitha P. Evaluation of compressive strength between cention N and high copper amalgam-an in vitro study. J Drug Invent Today. 2019;12(2):255-7.

Moher D, Hopewell S, Schulz KF, Montori V, Gøtzsche PC, Devereaux PJ, et al. CONSORT 2010 explanation and elaboration: Updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. Int J Surg. 2012;10(1):28-55. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijsu.2011.10.001 PMid:22036893 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijsu.2011.10.001

Cohen J. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. 2nd ed. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 1988. p. 490.

Dupont WD, Plummer WD. Power and sample size calculations. Control Clin Trials. 1990;11(2):116-28. PMid:2161310 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0197-2456(90)90005-M

Faul F, Erdfelder E, Buchner A, Lang AG. G*Power Version 3.1.7 Computer Software. Germany: Uiversität Kiel; 2013.

Faul F, Erdfelder E, Lang AG, Buchner A. G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behav Res Methods. 2007;39(2):175-91. http://doi.org/10.3758/bf03193146 PMid:17695343 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193146

Refaat M, Shalaan O, El Zohairy A, El Zoghby A. Clinical evaluation of glass ionomer with glass hybrid technology versus conventional high viscosity glass ionomer in Class I cavities in patients with high caries risk: Randomized controlled trial. J Int Oral Health, 2020;12(3):203-12. https://doi.org/10.4103/jioh.jioh_297_19 DOI: https://doi.org/10.4103/JIOH.JIOH_297_19

Celik E, Tunac A, Yilmaz F. A randomized controlled split mouth tial evaluating the clinical performance of high viscosity glass ionomer restorations in non-carious cervical lesions. J Adhes Dent. 2018;20(4):299-305. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-018-2575-y PMid:30206572 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-018-2575-y

Bland M. An Introduction to Medical Statistics. 3rd ed. Oxford: Oxford Medical Publications; 2000. p. 464.

Mills GC, Alperin JB, Trimmer KB. Studies on variant glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenases: G6PD Fort Worth. Biochem Med. 1975;13(3):264-75. http://doi.org/10.1016/0006-2944(75)90084-8 PMid:1007 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0006-2944(75)90084-8

Paulson DS. Nonparametric statistical methods. In: Biostatistics and Microbiology: A Survival Manual. New York: Springer; 2009. p. 121-62. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-77282-0_7 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-77282-0_7

Galal RS, El Kadi AS, Ghoneim M. Surface roughness and solubility of a nano filled resin modified glass ionomer (in vitro study). Alex Dent J. 2018;43(2):123-7. https://doi.org/10.21608/adjalexu.2018.57757 DOI: https://doi.org/10.21608/adjalexu.2018.57757

Francois P, Fouquet V, Attal JP, Dursun E. Commercially available fluoride-releasing restorative materials: A review and a proposal for classification. Materials (Basel). 2020;13(10):E2313. http://doi.org/10.3390/ma13102313 PMid:32443424 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/ma13102313

Nandana KL, Sai Sankar AJ, Kumar MJ, Naveen K, Pranitha K, Manjula BS. Comparative evaluation of microleakage using three variables of glassionomer cement in primary and permanent teeth: An in vitro study. J Interdiscip Dent. 2016;6:110-5. https://doi.org/10.4103/2229-5194.201646 DOI: https://doi.org/10.4103/2229-5194.201646

Abo-Hamar SE, El-Desouky SS, Abu Hamila NA. Two-year clinical performance in primary teeth of nano-filled versus conventional resin-modified glass-ionomer restorations. Quintessence Int. 2015;46(5):381-8. http://doi.org/10.3290/j.qi.a33517 PMid:25642461

Nassar AA, El Sayed HY, Genaid ™, Etman WM. Clinical evaluation of different bioactive dental restorative materials. Egypt Dent J Res. 2020;4(4):1123-41.

Balkaya H, Arslan S, Pala K. A randomized, prospective clinical study evaluating effectiveness of a bulk-fill composite resin, a conventional composite resin and a reinforced glass ionomer in Class II cavities: One-year results. J Appl Oral Sci. 2019;27:e20180678. https://doi.org/10.1590/1678-7757-2018-0678 PMid:31596369 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1590/1678-7757-2018-0678

van Dijken JWV, Pallesen U, Benetti A. A randomized controlled evaluation of posterior resin restorations of an altered resin modified glass-ionomer cement with claimed bioactivity. Dent Mater. 2019;35(2):335-43. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2018.11.027 PMid:30527586 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2018.11.027

Eissa MM, Akah M, Yousry M, Hamza H, Hassanein H and Pameijer CH. Clinical performance of a bioactive restorative material vs a glass hybrid restorative in posterior restorations in high risk caries patients. World J Dent. 2021;12(4):292-300. https://doi.org/10.5005/jp-journals-10015-1844 DOI: https://doi.org/10.5005/jp-journals-10015-1844

Dedania MS, Shah NC, Bhadra D, Bajpai N, Sapariya K. One year comparative evaluation of clinical performance of silver amalgam and cention N in simple class one carious lesions in permanent molars a split mouth randomized clinical study. Int J Curr Res. 2018;10(8):72993-6.

Sadananda V, Shetty C, Hegde M and Bhat GS. Alkasite restorative material: Flexural and compressive strength evaluation. Res J Pharm Biol Chem Sci. 2018;9(5):2179-82.

Dodiya PV, Parekh V, Gupta MS, Patel N, Shah M, Tatu S. Clinical evaluation of Cention N and nano hybrid composite resin as a restoration of non-carious cervical lesion. J Dent Spec. 2019;7(1):3-5. https://doi.org/10.18231/j.jds.2019.001 DOI: https://doi.org/10.18231/j.jds.2019.001

de Fúcio SB, de Paula AB, de Carvalho FG, Feitosa VP, Ambrosano GM, Puppin-Rontani RM. Biomechanical degradation of the nano-filled resin-modified glass-ionomer surface. Am J Dent. 2012;25(6):315-20. https://doi.org/10.2341/12-340 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2341/12-340

Abd El Halim S, Zaki D. Comparative evaluation of microleakage among three different glass ionomer types. Oper Dent. 2011;36(1):36-42. http://doi.org/10.2341/10-123-LR PMid:21488727 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2341/10-123-LR

Owens BM, Phebus JG, Johnson WW. Evaluation of the marginal integrity of a bioactive restorative material. Gen Dent. 2018;66(3):32-6. PMid:29714697

Alkhudhairy FI, Ahmad ZH. Comparison of shear bond strength and microleakage of various bulk-fill bioactive dentin substitutes: An in vitro study. J Contemp Dent Pract 2016;17(12):997-1002. https://doi.org/10.5005/jp-journals-10024-1970 DOI: https://doi.org/10.5005/jp-journals-10024-1970

Afraaz A, Borugadda R, Ravi R. Evaluation of marginal adaptation and wear resistance of nanohybrid and Alkasite restorative resins. J Clin Diagn Res. 2020;14(12):16-20. https://doi.org/10.7860/jcdr/2020/45840.14305 DOI: https://doi.org/10.7860/JCDR/2020/45840.14305

Firouzmandi M, Alavi AA, Jafarpour D, Sadatsharifee S. Fracture strength and marginal adaptation of conservative and extended MOD cavities restored with cention N. Int J Dent. 2021;2021:5599042. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1155/2021/5599042