StomatologyEduJournal1-2015 | Page 15

GLASSIONOMER CEMENT FOR PERMANENT DENTAL RESTORATIONS: A 48-MONTHS, MULTI-CENTRE, PROSPECTIVE CLINICAL TRIAL Table 5 Chippings of restorations according to cavity class and number of restoration surfaces (number of chippings / total number of specific restorations) No. of surfaces Incisors Canines Premolars Molars 1 1/23 (4,35%) 3/59 (5,08%) 2 1/28 (3,57%) 4/30 (13,33%) 3 0/19 (0%) 3/24 (12,5%) 4+ 4/18 (22,22%) 7/31 (22,58%) Class V 0/13 (0%) 3/14 (21,43%) 7/36 (19,44%) 3/9 (33,33%) Total Chippings 0/13 (0%) 3/14 (21,43%) 13/124 (10,48%) 20/153 (13,07%) Table 6 Failures of restorations according to cavity class and number of restoration surfaces (number of failures / total number of specific restorations) No. of surfaces Incisors Canines Premolars Molars 1 1/23 (4,35%) 0/59 (0%) 2 0/28 (0%) 4/30 (13,33%) 3 1/19 (5,26%) 1/24 (4,17%) 4+ 5/18 (27,78) 4/31 (12,9%) V class 2/13 (15,38%) 3/14 (21,43%) 3/36 (8,33%) 2/9 (22,22%) Total Failures 2/13 (15,38%) 3/14 (21,43%) 10/124 (8,06%) 11/153 (7,19%) Considering the integrity of restorations (code = 0, Table 1), 36 restorations have been recorded as “chipped” (less than 1 mm of marginal damage, codes 1 or 2). Added to the 26 failed restorations (code > 2), a total of 62 restorations were not considered for the General Integrity Rate (GIR). Overall data for GSR and GIR are presented in Figure 6. The restorations performed were also evaluated considering their success related to vitality of the restored tooth, and optional use of dental dam (Table 7). There was no statistical difference in failure rate for both parameters of vitality and use of dental dam. No significant differences were found among the four different trained operators in terms of outcomes, failure rates and chippings of restorations. There were no reported side effects or allergies against the tested glassionomer cement or lightcuring acrylic resin after their application. Patients did not report dentinal hypersensitivity, even after replacement of previous dental amalgams. Analyzing the impressions and opinions reported by patients through the questionnaire, the surface of performed glassionomer restorations has been perceived by patients as “very smooth” at the end of procedures. Many patients reported a strong smell and taste of the coating agent while applying it, due to solvents and to its acrylic nature. Once STOMA.EDUJ (2015) 2 (1) polymerized, this problem disappeared. 11.88% of patients (24 of 202) declared the presence of rough surfaces on the restorations at 12 months, 22.28% (45 of 202) at 24 months, 25.25% (51 of 202) at 36 months, 30.69% (62 of 202) at 48 months. No rough surfaces were declared to be present at the baseline. In the majority of cases (74.19% 46 patien