Abstract
Objective Aim of the present study was to evaluate the clinical suitability of the condensable metal-reinforced glass ionomer cement Hi-Dense in classes I and II cavities of primary molars.
Methods Seventeen children received a total of fifty four Hi-Dense fillings (nineteen class I and thirty five class II). The restorations were clinically assessed at baseline, after one and after two years of clinical service according to modified USPHS codes and criteria. The restorations were replicated in each recall and representative samples were qualitatively analysed under a SEM.
Results Over the observation period of two years, five restorations failed due to total retention loss, two fillings needed replacement because of persisting hypersensitivity, one filling was lost because of an unsuccessful endodontic treatment, and four restorations remained intact until natural exfoliation (Two year survival rate: 92% for Class I and 66% for Class II). The SEM analysis of surfaces and marginal areas exhibited an inferior adhesive performance primarily in proximal areas, whereas a negative step formation due to wear was frequently observed in occlusal parts.
Conclusions The results clearly indicate that the condensable, metal-reinforced GIC Hi-Dense reveals no enhanced performance and lifetime expectancy for class II restorations in primary molars when compared to other non-resin-modified GICs.
Similar content being viewed by others
Log in or create a free account to read this content
Gain free access to this article, as well as selected content from this journal and more on nature.com
or
References
Hickel R, Voss A . A comparison of glass cermet cement and amalgam restorations in primary molars. J Dent Child 1990; 57: 184–188.
Krämer N, Pelka M, Kautetzky P, Sindel J, Petschelt A . Wear resistance of compomers and viscous glass ionomer cements (Abstract in English). Dtsch Zahnärztl Z 1996; 52: 186–189.
Frankenberger R, Sindel J, Krämer N . Viscous glass ionomer cements - an alternative to amalgam in the primary dentition? Quintessence Int 1997; 28: 667–676.
Bundesgesundheitsamt: Amalgame - Nebenwirkungen und Bewertung der Toxizität (Amalgams: Side effects and toxicity). Zahnärztl Mitt 1992; 82/19: 36.
Qvist V, Laurberg L, Poulsen A, Teglers P T . Longevity and cariostatic effects of everyday conventional glass-ionomer and amalgam restorations in primary teeth: three-year results. J Dent Res 1997; 76: 1387–1396.
Attin T, Opatowski A, Meyer C, Zingg-Meyer B, Hellwig E . Clinical evaluation of a hybrid composite and a polyacid-modified composite resin in Class-II restorations in deciduous molars. Clin Oral Investig 1998; 2: 115–119.
Marks L A, Weerheijm K L, van Amerongen W E, Groen H J, Martens L C . Dyract versus Tytin Class II restorations in primary molars: 36 months evaluation. Caries Res 1999; 33: 387–392.
Mount G J . Glass-ionomers: A review of their current status. Oper Dent 1999; 124: 115–124.
Naasan M A, Watson T F . Conventional glass ionomers as posterior restorations. Am J Dent 11, 36 (1998).
Walls A W G, Murray J J, McCabe J F . The use of glass polyalkenoate (ionomer) cements in the deciduous dentition. Br Dent J 1988; 165: 13–17.
Wilson, A D, Crisp S, Prosser H J, Lewis B G, Merson S A . Aluminosilicate glasses for polyelectrolyte cements. Int Eng Chem Product R & D 1980; 19: 263–270.
Espelid I, Tveit A B, Tornes K H, Alvheim H . Clinical behaviour of glass ionomer restorations in primary teeth. J Dent 1999; 27: 437–442.
Guggenberger R, May R, Stefan K-P . New trends in glass-ionomer chemistry. Biomaterials 1998; 19: 479–483.
Frankenberger R, Krämer N, Graf A, Petschelt A . Cyclic fatigue of glass ionomers and compomers (Abstract in English). Dtsch Zahnärztl Z 1999; 54: 269–271.
Nicholson J W, Croll T P . Glass-ionomer cements in restorative dentistry. Quintessence Int 1997; 28: 705–714.
Mount G J . Clinical performance of glass-ionomers. Biomaterials 1998; 19: 573–579.
Walls A W G, Adamson J, McCabe J F, Murray J J . The properties of a glass polyalkeonate (ionomer) cement incorporating sintered metallic particles. Dent Mater 1987; 3: 113–116.
Williams J A, Billington R W, Pearson G J . The comparative strengths of commercial glass ionomer cements with and without metal additions. Br Dent J 1992; 172: 279–282.
McKinney I E, Antonucci J M, Rupp N W . Wear and microhardness of a silver-sintered glass-ionomer cement. J Dent Res 1988; 67: 831–835.
Kilpatrick N M, Murray J J, McCabe J F . The use of a reinforced glass-ionomer cermet for the restoration of primary molars: a clinical trial. Br Dent J 1995; 179: 175–179.
Forsten L, Karjalainen S . Glass ionomers in proximal cavities of primary molars. Scand J Dent Res 1990; 98: 70–73.
Östlund J, Moller K, Koch G . Amalgam, composite resin and glass ionomer cement in Class II restorations in primary molars - a three year clinical evaluation. Swed Dent J 1992; 16: 81–86.
Holst A . A 3-year clinical evaluation of Ketac Silver restorations in primary molars. Swed Dent J 1996; 20: 209–214.
Forsten L . Fluoride release and uptake by glass-ionomers and related materials and its clinical effect. Biomaterials 1998; 19: 503–508.
Pereira P N, Inokoshi S, Tagami J . In vitro secondary caries inhibition around fluoride releasing materials. J Dent 1998; 26: 505–510.
Mallow P, Durward M, Klaipo M . Comparison of two glass ionomer cements using the ART technique. J Dent Res 1995; 74: 405.
Frencken J E, Holmgren C J . How effective is ART in the management of dental caries? Community Dent Oral Epidemiol 1999; 27: 423–430.
Ryge G, Cvar J F . Criteria for the clinical evaluation of dental restorative materials. San Francisco: United States Dental Health Center, US Government Printing Office, 1971, publication no. 7902244.
Kilpatrik N M . Durability of restorations in primary molars. J Dent 1993; 21: 67–73.
Peutzfeldt A . Compomers and glass ionomers: bond strength to dentin and mechanical properties. Am J Dent 1996; 9: 259–263.
Van Dijken J W . Four-year evaluation of the effect of 10% polyacrylic acid or water rinsing pretreatment on retention of glass polyalkenoate cement. Eur J Oral Sci 1996; 104: 64–66.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Refereed paper
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Krämer, N., Frankenberger, R. Clinical performance of a condensable metal-reinforced glass ionomer cement in primary molars. Br Dent J 190, 317–321 (2001). https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.bdj.4800960
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.bdj.4800960
This article is cited by
-
Herbalism and glass-based materials in dentistry: review of the current state of the art
Journal of Materials Science: Materials in Medicine (2023)
-
Clinical effectiveness of restorative materials for the restoration of carious primary teeth without pulp therapy: a systematic review
European Archives of Paediatric Dentistry (2022)
-
Clinical effectiveness of restorative materials for the restoration of carious lesions in pulp treated primary teeth: a systematic review
European Archives of Paediatric Dentistry (2022)
-
Success rate of proximal tooth-coloured direct restorations in primary teeth at 24 months: a meta-analysis
Scientific Reports (2020)
-
Füllungsmaterialien für das Milchgebiss
Stomatologie (2014)
