Comparative Evaluation of Two Esthetic Full Coronal Restorative Materials for Primary Incisors

Abstract

Aim: This study was designed to compare the clinical efficacy of two esthetic restorative materials, nanoceramic (Magma NT®) and giomer (Beautifil II®), as full coronal restoration in primary maxillary incisors. Materials and methods: A total of 15 patients aged 3–5 years presenting with mutilated primary maxillary incisors due to caries or trauma were selected for the study using randomized simple sampling. A total of 40 maxillary incisors were randomly divided into two equal groups, with 20 teeth in each group. Teeth in group I (GP I) were restored with nanoceramic (Magma NT®) and group II (GP II) with giomer (Beautifil II®). The full coronal restorations were done using strip crowns (3M ESPE). The restorations were evaluated for gross fracture, marginal integrity, and secondary caries according to modified Ryge’s criteria [United States Public Health Service (USPHS)] at baseline (immediate postoperative), 3, 6, and 9 months. Parental satisfaction with each type of restoration was also evaluated using the Likert 5-point scale. Results: The data obtained was statistically analyzed using the Chi-squared test, and the level of significance, that is, the p-value, was determined. The Chi-squared test showed no significant changes to all modified USPHS criteria for each material at baseline and 3-month evaluation period. The changes recorded were after a 3-month follow-up between the two materials; nanoceramic (Magma NT®) restoration demonstrated marginally better than giomer (Beautifil II®) in terms of gross fracture and marginal integrity; however, there was no statically significant difference between them (p > 0.05), while giomer (Beautifil II®) was better than nanoceramic in terms of secondary caries (p < 0.05). Parental satisfaction for both entities was comparable in terms of color and durability; however, they were cost-ineffective. Conclusion: Nanoceramic restoration demonstrated better results in terms of gross fracture and marginal integrity, while giomer was better in terms of secondary caries. Clinical significance: Nanoceramics and giomers can serve as an alternative to conventional restorative materials in primary anterior teeth because of their improved qualities.