Home | About us | Editorial board | Search | Ahead of print | Current issue | Archives | Submit article | Instructions| Reviewers

Login 
  Home Print this page Email this page Small font sizeDefault font sizeIncrease font size Users Online: 256    
     
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Year : 2012  |  Volume : 2  |  Issue : 2  |  Page : 42-47

Clinical evaluation of a new art material: Nanoparticulated resin-modified glass ionomer cement


Department of Pedodontics & Preventive Dentistry, AECS Maruthi College of Dental Sciences & Research Centre, Bangalore, India

Correspondence Address:
S Konde
Department of Pedodontics & Preventive Dentistry, AECS Maruthi College of Dental Sciences and Research Centre, Bangalore - 560 007
India
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/2231-0762.109361

Rights and Permissions

Context: The success of atraumatic restorative treatment (ART) technique depends on the restorative material; hence, clinical studies with various materials are necessary. Aim: The aim of the present study was to clinically evaluate and compare the nanoionomer and high-viscosity glass ionomer using United States Public Health Services (USPHS) Modified Cvar/Ryge Criteria with ART approach. Materials and Methods: Two primary molars in 50 healthy children aged between 5 and 8 years were selected for the study. The teeth were treated with ART and divided into two groups. The group 1 teeth were restored with nanoionomer (Ketac Nano 100 3M ESPE) and group 2 with high-viscosity glass ionomer cement (HVGIC), (Fuji IX GC). Each restoration was evaluated using the USPHS Modified Cvar/Ryge Criteria at baseline and 6 months' and 12 months' time interval. Statistical analysis used: Chi-squared (χ2 ) test. Results: Nanoionomer was significantly better than HVGIC with respect to color match at baseline, 6 months, and 12 months (P<0.001). Nanoionomers were also significantly better than HVGIC in case of cavosurface marginal discoloration and marginal adaptation (P<0.001) at 6 months and 12 months. There was no significant difference between the two materials with respect to secondary caries at 6 months (P>0.05), but at 12 months, nanoionomer was statistically better than HVGIC (P<0.05). There was no statistical significant difference with respect to anatomical form and postoperative sensitivity (P>0.05). Conclusion: The results indicate that nanoionomer can be a successful alternative restorative material for use with ART technique.


[FULL TEXT] [PDF]*
Print this article     Email this article
 Next article
 Previous article
 Table of Contents

 Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
 Citation Manager
 Access Statistics
 Reader Comments
 Email Alert *
 Add to My List *
 * Requires registration (Free)
 

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed3256    
    Printed101    
    Emailed3    
    PDF Downloaded385    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal