The assessment of internal adaptation and fracture resistance of glass ionomer and resin-based restorative materials applied after different caries removal techniques in primary teeth: an in-vitro study

1Citations
Citations of this article
17Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.
Get full text

Abstract

Background: The aim of this study was to evaluate the 3-dimensional (3D) internal adaptation (IA) and fracture resistance (FR) of compomer and glass ionomers applied after conventional caries removal to sound dentin (CCRSD) and selective caries removal to firm dentin (SCRFD) in in-vitro. Methods: Thirty extracted primary molars were randomly assigned to three main groups (n = 10) as glass hybrid restorative (GHR) (Equia ForteÒ HT), conventional glass ionomer (CGIR) (Voco Ionofil Molar) and compomer (Dyract XP). Each group was randomly divided into two subgroups according to caries removal technique as CCRSD (n = 5) and SCRFD (n = 5). The restoration procedures were completed after caries removal (CCRSD or SCRFD) in all samples. Then, specimens were subjected to IA and FR tests. Data were analyzed with Student’s t, one-way ANOVA, and Kruskal Wallis-H tests. The correlation between IA and FR results was analyzed with a Pearson test. The statistical significance level was considered as 5%. Results: While CCRSD showed superior IA results than SCRFD for all restorative materials (p < 0.05), no statistical difference was found between CCRSD and SCRFD in FR assessment (p > 0.05). In CCRSD, compomer showed superior results for IA and FR than glass ionomers (p < 0.05). In SCRFD, it was found no significant difference between the restoratives for IA (p > 0.05). However, compomer showed superior FR results than glass ionomers (p < 0.05). There was moderate negative correlation between internal voids and FR without statistically significant difference (r = −0.333, p = 0.072). Conclusions: Despite the advantages of SCRFD, it was found to be less superior than CCRSD in IA assessment. Therefore, when SCRFD is preferred, a peripheral seal should be provided for ideal restorative treatment. On the other hand, compomer mostly showed superior results compared to others.

References Powered by Scopus

Managing Carious Lesions: Consensus Recommendations on Carious Tissue Removal

509Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Minimal intervention dentistry for managing dental caries - A review: Report of a FDI task group

344Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

CRIS guidelines (Checklist for Reporting In-vitro Studies): A concept note on the need for standardized guidelines for improving quality and transparency in reporting in-vitro studies in experimental dental research

265Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Cited by Powered by Scopus

The evaluation of internal adaptation of glass ionomer restorations applied after the use of different cavity conditioners in primary teeth: an in-vitro study

0Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Demirel, A., Orhan, A. I., & Büyüksungur, A. (2023). The assessment of internal adaptation and fracture resistance of glass ionomer and resin-based restorative materials applied after different caries removal techniques in primary teeth: an in-vitro study. PeerJ, 11. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.14825

Readers' Seniority

Tooltip

Lecturer / Post doc 1

100%

Readers' Discipline

Tooltip

Medicine and Dentistry 2

67%

Engineering 1

33%

Article Metrics

Tooltip
Mentions
News Mentions: 1

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free