Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Objective: The aim of this study was to assess the influence of heated in the clinical success of proximal high viscosity glass ionomer cement (GIC) restorations in primary molars.
Material & Method: This randomized, split mouth, multicenter study was performed in four different centers including 88 patients aged between 5-7 years old. Selection criteria included clinically and/or radiographically detected proximal caries extending into the dentin tissue. A total of 250 primary molars were restored with a bulk fill GIC (Equia Forte, GC, Europe) and randomly allocated to one of the following groups: 1) non-heated (n = 125) and 2) heated (n = 125). LED light (GC- D-Light DUO, Tokyo Japan) was used at standard mode 1200 mW/cm2, at 50-60 ºC, for 60 sec for heat application. All restorations were clinically evaluated using modified USPHS criteria at the baseline, 6 months and 12 months. Chi-square test, Fisher's Exact Chi-square test, Continuity (Yates) correction, Fisher Freeman Halton test and Mc Nemar test were used to compare qualitative data with descriptive statistical methods (frequency). Kaplan Meier and Life Tables were used for survival analysis. P value < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
| Label | Type | Description | Intervention Names |
|---|---|---|---|
| Non-Heated Arm | Experimental | Proximal cavities were restored with Equia Forte (GC Corporation, Europe) according to manufacturer's orders. |
|
| Heated Arm | Experimental | Teeth were restored as same protocole with non-Heated Group. LED light (GC- D-Light DUO) was used at standard mode 1200 mW/cm2, at 50-60 ºC, for 60 sec. |
|
| Name | Type | Description | Arm Group Labels | Other Names |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Glass -Ionomer Cement with /without Led Light Cure | Other | Teeth were restored as same protocole with non-Heated Group. LED light (GC- D-Light DUO) was used at standard mode 1200 mW/cm2, at 50-60 ºC, for 60 sec. |
| Measure | Description | Time Frame |
|---|---|---|
| Clinical success assessment measurement | All restorations were evaluated by using Modified US Public Health Service criteria (modified USPHS criteria). Marginal Integrity (MI)), Marginal Discoloration (MD), Secondary Caries (SC), Anatomic Form (AF), and retention (R) were evaluated. A restoration was considered a failure when codes Charlie (C) and D (Delta) were registered. Codes A (Alpha) and B (Bravo) was considered a success or acceptable. follow up period was baseline, 6th months, 12th months. | 12 months. |
Not provided
Not provided
Inclusion Criteria:
Exclusion Criteria:
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
| ID | Term |
|---|---|
| D003731 | Dental Caries |
| ID | Term |
|---|---|
| D017001 | Tooth Demineralization |
| D014076 | Tooth Diseases |
| D009057 | Stomatognathic Diseases |
Not provided
Not provided
| ID | Term |
|---|---|
| D005899 | Glass Ionomer Cements |
| ID | Term |
|---|---|
| D003738 | Dental Cements |
| D003764 | Dental Materials |
| D001697 | Biomedical and Dental Materials |
| D008420 | Manufactured Materials |
Not provided
Not provided
Randomised Control
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
| D013676 |
| Technology, Industry, and Agriculture |