Effect of incorporation of nano-hydroxyapatite particles on the clinical performance of conventional and resin-modified glass ionomer cement in class V cavities: split-mouth, randomized controlled trial
Abstract Background The aim of this study was to compare the clinical performance of Nano-hydroxyapatite-modified conventional glass ionomer cement (NHA-GIC) and Nano-hydroxyapatite-modified resin-modified glass ionomer cement (NHA-RMGIC) with conventional glass ionomer (CGIC) and resin-modified gla...
Guardado en:
| Autores principales: | , , , , |
|---|---|
| Formato: | article |
| Lenguaje: | EN |
| Publicado: |
SpringerOpen
2021
|
| Materias: | |
| Acceso en línea: | https://doaj.org/article/db8c62b6fe204f21a6c916dda4ec3924 |
| Etiquetas: |
Agregar Etiqueta
Sin Etiquetas, Sea el primero en etiquetar este registro!
|
| Sumario: | Abstract Background The aim of this study was to compare the clinical performance of Nano-hydroxyapatite-modified conventional glass ionomer cement (NHA-GIC) and Nano-hydroxyapatite-modified resin-modified glass ionomer cement (NHA-RMGIC) with conventional glass ionomer (CGIC) and resin-modified glass ionomer (RMGIC) in the treatment of caries class V cavities. Sixty patients with at least two cervical caries lesions participated in this study. A total of 120 class V cavities were prepared and then restored using different restorative materials. Restorations were clinically evaluated according to modified United States Public Health Service criteria at baseline and after 3, 6 and 9 months. Results There was no statistically significant difference in the clinical performance of the different restorative materials at any of the follow-up periods. However, throughout the study period there was a statistically significant change in the color match, surface texture and marginal integrity in NHA-GIC. A statistically significant change in the surface texture and marginal integrity was found in GIC. On the other hand, there was only a statistically significant change in surface texture in NHA-RMGIC. Conclusions All tested restorative materials, control (CGIC and RMGIC) as well as experimental (NHA-GIC and NHA-RMGIC), exhibited comparable clinical performance after 9 months follow-up. |
|---|