File Download
There are no files associated with this item.
Links for fulltext
(May Require Subscription)
- Publisher Website: 10.1111/j.2041-1626.2010.00036.x
- Scopus: eid_2-s2.0-84944157333
- WOS: WOS:000214071400011
- Find via
Supplementary
- Citations:
- Appears in Collections:
Article: Posterior resin composite restorations with or without resin-modified, glass-ionomer cement lining: a 1-year randomized, clinical trial
Title | Posterior resin composite restorations with or without resin-modified, glass-ionomer cement lining: a 1-year randomized, clinical trial |
---|---|
Authors | |
Keywords | Clinical trial Glass-ionomer cement lining Posterior resin composite Self-etching adhesive Total-etch adhesive |
Issue Date | 2011 |
Publisher | Wiley-Blackwell Publishing, Inc.. The Journal's web site is located at http://www.wiley.com/bw/journal.asp?ref=2041-1618&site=1 |
Citation | Journal of Investigative and Clinical Dentistry, 2011, v. 2 n. 1, p. 63-69 How to Cite? |
Abstract | Aim: To investigate the effect of resin-modified, glass-ionomer cement lining on the quality of posterior resin composite restorations, bonded with a two-step, total-etch or self-etching adhesive, at 1 year.
Methods: Patients with 1–4 moderate-to-deep, primary occlusal caries in molars were informed and recruited. A total of 110 composite restorations were placed in 75 participants, with one of four restorative procedures: (a) bonded with a total-etch adhesive (Single Bond 2); (b) lined with glass-ionomer cement (Fuji Lining LC), and then bonded with total-etch adhesive; (c) bonded with a self-etching adhesive (Clearfil SE Bond); and (d) lined with glass-ionomer cement, and then bonded with self-etching adhesive.
Results: At 1 year, 57 patients (86 restorations) attended the recall. Each of the restorations was evaluated and scored from 1 (clinically excellent) to 5 (clinically poor) using the following criteria: (a) patient satisfaction; (b) fracture and retention; (c) marginal adaptation; (d) recurrent caries; and (e) post-operative sensitivity. At 1 year, the qualities of the restorations were not significantly affected by the placement of glass-ionomer cement lining, regardless of the adhesive used (P > 0.05). Most of the restorations were scored 1 for all criteria.
Conclusions: The benefit of placing a glass-ionomer cement liner in resin composite restoration is questionable. |
Persistent Identifier | http://hdl.handle.net/10722/134968 |
ISSN | 2020 SCImago Journal Rankings: 0.599 |
ISI Accession Number ID |
DC Field | Value | Language |
---|---|---|
dc.contributor.author | Banomyong, D | en_US |
dc.contributor.author | Harnirattisai, C | en_US |
dc.contributor.author | Burrow, MF | en_US |
dc.date.accessioned | 2011-07-27T01:25:11Z | - |
dc.date.available | 2011-07-27T01:25:11Z | - |
dc.date.issued | 2011 | en_US |
dc.identifier.citation | Journal of Investigative and Clinical Dentistry, 2011, v. 2 n. 1, p. 63-69 | en_US |
dc.identifier.issn | 2041-1618 | - |
dc.identifier.uri | http://hdl.handle.net/10722/134968 | - |
dc.description.abstract | Aim: To investigate the effect of resin-modified, glass-ionomer cement lining on the quality of posterior resin composite restorations, bonded with a two-step, total-etch or self-etching adhesive, at 1 year. Methods: Patients with 1–4 moderate-to-deep, primary occlusal caries in molars were informed and recruited. A total of 110 composite restorations were placed in 75 participants, with one of four restorative procedures: (a) bonded with a total-etch adhesive (Single Bond 2); (b) lined with glass-ionomer cement (Fuji Lining LC), and then bonded with total-etch adhesive; (c) bonded with a self-etching adhesive (Clearfil SE Bond); and (d) lined with glass-ionomer cement, and then bonded with self-etching adhesive. Results: At 1 year, 57 patients (86 restorations) attended the recall. Each of the restorations was evaluated and scored from 1 (clinically excellent) to 5 (clinically poor) using the following criteria: (a) patient satisfaction; (b) fracture and retention; (c) marginal adaptation; (d) recurrent caries; and (e) post-operative sensitivity. At 1 year, the qualities of the restorations were not significantly affected by the placement of glass-ionomer cement lining, regardless of the adhesive used (P > 0.05). Most of the restorations were scored 1 for all criteria. Conclusions: The benefit of placing a glass-ionomer cement liner in resin composite restoration is questionable. | - |
dc.language | eng | en_US |
dc.publisher | Wiley-Blackwell Publishing, Inc.. The Journal's web site is located at http://www.wiley.com/bw/journal.asp?ref=2041-1618&site=1 | - |
dc.relation.ispartof | Journal of Investigative and Clinical Dentistry | en_US |
dc.rights | The definitive version is available at www3.interscience.wiley.com | - |
dc.subject | Clinical trial | - |
dc.subject | Glass-ionomer cement lining | - |
dc.subject | Posterior resin composite | - |
dc.subject | Self-etching adhesive | - |
dc.subject | Total-etch adhesive | - |
dc.title | Posterior resin composite restorations with or without resin-modified, glass-ionomer cement lining: a 1-year randomized, clinical trial | en_US |
dc.type | Article | en_US |
dc.identifier.email | Burrow, MF: mfburr58@hku.hk | en_US |
dc.identifier.authority | Burrow, MF=rp01306 | en_US |
dc.identifier.doi | 10.1111/j.2041-1626.2010.00036.x | - |
dc.identifier.scopus | eid_2-s2.0-84944157333 | - |
dc.identifier.hkuros | 186548 | en_US |
dc.identifier.volume | 2 | en_US |
dc.identifier.issue | 1 | - |
dc.identifier.spage | 63 | en_US |
dc.identifier.epage | 69 | en_US |
dc.identifier.isi | WOS:000214071400011 | - |
dc.publisher.place | United States | - |
dc.identifier.issnl | 2041-1618 | - |