Services on Demand
Journal
Article
Indicators
Cited by SciELO
Related links
Similars in SciELO
Share
Revista de la Asociación Odontológica Argentina
On-line version ISSN 2683-7226
Abstract
CORTESE, Silvina Gabriela and BIONDI, Ana María. Clinical evaluation of dentin conditioning and different presentations of light cured glass ionomer in primary dentition. Rev. Asoc. Odontol. Argent. [online]. 2021, vol.109, n.1, pp.3-8. Epub Apr 15, 2021. ISSN 2683-7226. http://dx.doi.org/10.52979/raoa.1125.
Aim:
To assess the clinical performance, operative time required, cost and technical difficulties of different restorative techniques in primary teeth, using light cured glass ionomers (LCG), powder/liquid, with and without dentin conditioning and light cured glass ionomer in capsules with conditioning.
Materials and methods:
The design of this study was experimental and comparative. 33 restorations with LCG were performed in 18 patients, 7 ± 2-years-old, in one or more vital primary teeth with carious lesions involving one or more tooth surfaces. Patients were assigned to one of the three groups according to the day of the week in which they attended to the Pediatric Department of the Dental School: A) LCG powder/liquid, with conditioning (3M™ VitremerTM); B) LCG powder/liquid without conditioning (3M™ VitremerTM); and C) LCG in capsules with conditioning (Riva Light Cure).
The restorations were clinically evaluated at baseline and after 12 months according to the following criteria: complete loss of the restoration, complete loss with caries, need of replacement because of partial loss, need of replacement because of caries, good condition with some wear and good condition. Technical difficulties were analyzed using a data sheet designed for that purpose. The operative time required was evaluated without considering the insertion time.
Results:
Time operative time required was 2 minutes 15 seconds in A, 1 minute 25 seconds in B and 1 minute 10 seconds in C. Cost was 61.11% higher for C. Difficulty was 3.2±0.6 for A and B and 1.5±0.7 for C (ANOVA; P<0.001). No significant differences were observed among the three groups in relation to the clinical performance (Fisher; P=0.339).
Conclusions:
In these 12 months, study in primary teeth, the light cured glass ionomers used dispensed in capsules showed to be the easiest to handle, had higher cost and similar clinical performance than the powder liquid presentations with and without dentin conditioner.
Keywords : Clinical trial; deciduous teeth; glass ionomer cements.