Scholarlink

Purpose <p>To compare the 24&#xa0;month outcomes of a newer version of conventional glass ionomer cements (GIC; Equia Forte; GC Corp., Tokyo, Japan) and a standard resin-modified glass ionomer cement (RMGIC; Fuji II LC; GC Corp.) in Class II primary molar restorations and investigate reasons for failures.</p> Methods <p>Healthy and cooperative 4- to 9-year-old children with proximal surface caries lesions in all four primary molars of the same jaw, following clinical and/or radiographic examination, received Class II restorations with GIC or RMGIC, allocated randomly per quadrant. These were assessed semi-annually for 2&#xa0;years using modified USPHS criteria. The radiographic examination was conducted annually, and assessed the presence of furcation/periapical radiolucencies, pathological root resorption and secondary caries lesion formation. Cox regression analyses were used to determine restoration survival between the two materials; Mc Nemar’s test was used to compare proportions of failure between the two restorative materials. The level of statistical significance was set at <i>p</i> &lt; 0.05.</p> Results <p>Of the 63 children initially included in the study, 55 attended all four recalls, with a total of 120 restorations per material. There was a statistically significantly higher success rate in the RMGIC group compared to GIC (90.8% and 66.7%, respectively, <i>p</i> &lt; 0.001). Most failures of GIC were attributed to partial or total loss of restoration (31.7%).</p> Conclusion <p>RMGIC Class II primary molar restorations had statistically significantly greater success compared to GIC restorations in the 24&#xa0;month observation period.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Glass hybrid versus resin-modified glass ionomer cement in class II restorations of primary molars: a 24 months randomised clinical trial

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2026年2月16日

查看全文
  • P. Papadopoulou,
  • V. Siokis,
  • I. Kotsanos,
  • V. Boka,
  • A. Arhakis,
  • N. Kotsanos

摘要

Purpose

To compare the 24 month outcomes of a newer version of conventional glass ionomer cements (GIC; Equia Forte; GC Corp., Tokyo, Japan) and a standard resin-modified glass ionomer cement (RMGIC; Fuji II LC; GC Corp.) in Class II primary molar restorations and investigate reasons for failures.

Methods

Healthy and cooperative 4- to 9-year-old children with proximal surface caries lesions in all four primary molars of the same jaw, following clinical and/or radiographic examination, received Class II restorations with GIC or RMGIC, allocated randomly per quadrant. These were assessed semi-annually for 2 years using modified USPHS criteria. The radiographic examination was conducted annually, and assessed the presence of furcation/periapical radiolucencies, pathological root resorption and secondary caries lesion formation. Cox regression analyses were used to determine restoration survival between the two materials; Mc Nemar’s test was used to compare proportions of failure between the two restorative materials. The level of statistical significance was set at p < 0.05.

Results

Of the 63 children initially included in the study, 55 attended all four recalls, with a total of 120 restorations per material. There was a statistically significantly higher success rate in the RMGIC group compared to GIC (90.8% and 66.7%, respectively, p < 0.001). Most failures of GIC were attributed to partial or total loss of restoration (31.7%).

Conclusion

RMGIC Class II primary molar restorations had statistically significantly greater success compared to GIC restorations in the 24 month observation period.