12 Month's Assessment Of Clinical Efficacy Of Resin Modified Glass Ionomer Cement And Flowable Composites In Restoration Of Non-Carious Cervical Lesions, A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Q3 Medicine
Atikah Saghir, Tehmina Rehman, Bushra Irum, Zarah Afreen, Faisal Nawaz Nawaz
{"title":"12 Month's Assessment Of Clinical Efficacy Of Resin Modified Glass Ionomer Cement And Flowable Composites In Restoration Of Non-Carious Cervical Lesions, A Randomized Clinical Trial.","authors":"Atikah Saghir,&nbsp;Tehmina Rehman,&nbsp;Bushra Irum,&nbsp;Zarah Afreen,&nbsp;Faisal Nawaz Nawaz","doi":"10.55519/JAMC-01-10780","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The objective of this study was to compare the clinical efficacy of Resin modified glass ionomer cement and Flowable composite in terms of retention, marginal adaptation and surface texture using United States Public Health Service criteria in non-carious cervical lesions measured over a period of one year.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A Randomized Clinical Trial is conducted with Informed consent on 60 patients who are randomly allocated into 2 groups with at least 2 Non Carious Cervical Lesions in each. Group 1 is used for Flowable Composite while group 2 is used for resin modified glass ionomer cement. A recall is maintained to draw conclusions between two materials in terms of occurrence of marginal adaptation, retention and surface texture, to show which material is superior to other.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Out of 30 restorations in 12 months follow up, only 19 found to be present in flowable composite group while in resin modified glass ionomer cement group, 28 are retained. Regarding margin integrity, Group 1 showed 21 intact margins whereas 23 margins were intact in group 2, while 18 and 25 showed smooth surface in flowable composite and Resin modified glass ionomer cement group respectively, on exploration.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>It can be concluded from our study that Resin modified glass ionomer cement is superior to Flowable composite in terms of retention (p=0.005) and surface texture (p=0.045) in restoration of non carious cervical lesion.</p>","PeriodicalId":15141,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Ayub Medical College, Abbottabad : JAMC","volume":"35 1","pages":"7-10"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Ayub Medical College, Abbottabad : JAMC","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.55519/JAMC-01-10780","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Background: The objective of this study was to compare the clinical efficacy of Resin modified glass ionomer cement and Flowable composite in terms of retention, marginal adaptation and surface texture using United States Public Health Service criteria in non-carious cervical lesions measured over a period of one year.

Methods: A Randomized Clinical Trial is conducted with Informed consent on 60 patients who are randomly allocated into 2 groups with at least 2 Non Carious Cervical Lesions in each. Group 1 is used for Flowable Composite while group 2 is used for resin modified glass ionomer cement. A recall is maintained to draw conclusions between two materials in terms of occurrence of marginal adaptation, retention and surface texture, to show which material is superior to other.

Results: Out of 30 restorations in 12 months follow up, only 19 found to be present in flowable composite group while in resin modified glass ionomer cement group, 28 are retained. Regarding margin integrity, Group 1 showed 21 intact margins whereas 23 margins were intact in group 2, while 18 and 25 showed smooth surface in flowable composite and Resin modified glass ionomer cement group respectively, on exploration.

Conclusion: It can be concluded from our study that Resin modified glass ionomer cement is superior to Flowable composite in terms of retention (p=0.005) and surface texture (p=0.045) in restoration of non carious cervical lesion.

一项随机临床试验:树脂改性玻璃离聚体水泥和可流动复合材料修复非龋齿宫颈病变12个月的临床疗效评估。
背景:本研究的目的是比较树脂改性玻璃离聚体水泥和可流动复合材料在保留、边缘适应和表面纹理方面的临床疗效,使用美国公共卫生服务标准在一年内测量的非龋齿宫颈病变。方法:在知情同意的情况下,将60例患者随机分为两组,每组至少2例宫颈非恶性病变。第1组用于可流动复合材料,第2组用于树脂改性玻璃离子水泥。通过回忆来得出两种材料在边缘适应、保留和表面纹理方面的结论,以表明哪种材料优于其他材料。结果:随访12个月,30个修复体中,可流动复合材料组仅保留19个,树脂改性玻璃离子水门体组保留28个。在边缘完整性方面,经勘探,第1组有21个边缘完整,第2组有23个边缘完整,可流动复合材料组和树脂改性玻璃离聚体水泥组分别有18个和25个边缘光滑。结论:树脂改性玻璃离聚体水泥在修复宫颈非龋牙病变方面的固位性(p=0.005)和表面质地(p=0.045)均优于可流复合材料。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
304
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信