Comparative Evaluation of Clinical Performance of Three Different Glass Hybrid Restorations in High Caries Risk Patients: A Randomized Control Trial.

Hegazi, Rabab Ismail; Jamil, Wael Essam; Fawzy, Ahmed

doi:10.21608/dsu.2023.152260.1134

Comparative Evaluation of Clinical Performance of Three Different Glass Hybrid Restorations in High Caries Risk Patients: A Randomized Control Trial.

Document Type : Original Article

Authors

¹ Ismailia, zahraa district, faculty of dentistry suez canal university

² Professor of Operative Dentistry, Faculty of Dental Medicine (girls), Al-Azhar University, Egypt,

³ Faculty of Dentistry, Suez Canal University

10.21608/dsu.2023.152260.1134

Abstract

This study was conducted to evaluate the clinical performance of three glass hybrid restorations; Nano-ionomer restoration (Ketac Nano), Bioactive ionomer glass fillers (Activa bioactive) and Alkasite restorative material (Cention N) in class I cavity in high caries risk patients after one year according to the FDI criteria for assessment of dental restorations.
Patients and Methods:Fifteencooperative patients, males or females with high caries risk who were approving to participate in the trial of age range 18-50 yearswere selected in the current study. Every patient should have three or more posterior teeth having occlusal pits and fissure carious lesions. Three class I cavities were performed for every patient and restored randomly with (M1) KetacnanoTM,(M2)ActivabioactiveTM and (M3) Cention NTM. All three restorations were applied according to manufacturers’ instructions. Restorations were evaluated at baseline(immediately), after three months, six months and one year by two blinded assessors using FDI criteria for assessment of dental restorations measuring biologicalproperties.
Results:Results of biological properties of the three restorative materials revealed that at baseline (T0), three, and six months (T1, T2), all cases (100%) of the three materials were clinically successful, with no significant difference between them. However, after 12 months 60 cases (100%) of M1, 59 cases (98%) of M2 and 58 cases (97%) of M3 were clinically successful, with non-significant difference between them.
Conclusion: In the purpose of restoring posterior permanent teeth in high caries risk patients, all three restorative materials demonstrated acceptable clinical performance in class I cavities with the same success rate.

Keywords