File Download

There are no files associated with this item.

  Links for fulltext
     (May Require Subscription)
Supplementary

Article: Posterior resin composite restorations with or without resin-modified, glass-ionomer cement lining: a 1-year randomized, clinical trial

TitlePosterior resin composite restorations with or without resin-modified, glass-ionomer cement lining: a 1-year randomized, clinical trial
Authors
KeywordsClinical trial
Glass-ionomer cement lining
Posterior resin composite
Self-etching adhesive
Total-etch adhesive
Issue Date2011
PublisherWiley-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?
AbstractAim:  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 Identifierhttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/134968
ISSN
2015 SCImago Journal Rankings: 0.268

 

DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorBanomyong, Den_US
dc.contributor.authorHarnirattisai, Cen_US
dc.contributor.authorBurrow, MFen_US
dc.date.accessioned2011-07-27T01:25:11Z-
dc.date.available2011-07-27T01:25:11Z-
dc.date.issued2011en_US
dc.identifier.citationJournal of Investigative and Clinical Dentistry, 2011, v. 2 n. 1, p. 63-69en_US
dc.identifier.issn2041-1618-
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/134968-
dc.description.abstractAim:  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.languageengen_US
dc.publisherWiley-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.ispartofJournal of Investigative and Clinical Dentistryen_US
dc.rightsThe definitive version is available at www3.interscience.wiley.com-
dc.subjectClinical trial-
dc.subjectGlass-ionomer cement lining-
dc.subjectPosterior resin composite-
dc.subjectSelf-etching adhesive-
dc.subjectTotal-etch adhesive-
dc.titlePosterior resin composite restorations with or without resin-modified, glass-ionomer cement lining: a 1-year randomized, clinical trialen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
dc.identifier.emailBurrow, MF: mfburr58@hku.hken_US
dc.identifier.authorityBurrow, MF=rp01306en_US
dc.identifier.doi10.1111/j.2041-1626.2010.00036.x-
dc.identifier.hkuros186548en_US
dc.identifier.volume2en_US
dc.identifier.issue1-
dc.identifier.spage63en_US
dc.identifier.epage69en_US
dc.publisher.placeUnited States-

Export via OAI-PMH Interface in XML Formats


OR


Export to Other Non-XML Formats