The Experts below are selected from a list of 1068 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
Daniela Procida Raggio - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
glass carbomer and Compomer for art restorations 3 year results of a randomized clinical trial
Clinical Oral Investigations, 2019Co-Authors: Isabel Cristina Olegario, Daniela Hesse, Fausto Medeiros Mendes, Clarissa Calil Bonifacio, Daniela Procida RaggioAbstract:OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the survival of atraumatic restorative treatment (ART) restorations using high viscosity glass ionomer cement (GIC), Compomer (COM), and glass carbomer (CAR) for occlusal and occlusoproximal cavitated dentin caries lesions in primary molars. METHODS: A total of 568 4-7-year-old children (287 occlusoproximal and 281 occlusal cavities) were selected in Barueri, Brazil. The patients were randomly allocated in three groups: GIC, COM, and CAR. All treatments were performed on school setting following ART premises. Evaluations were performed after 2, 6, 12, 18, 24, and 36 months. Restoration survival was evaluated using Kaplan-Meier survival analysis and log-rank test, while Cox regression analysis was used for testing association with clinical factors (α = 5%). RESULTS: The overall survival rate after 3 years of occlusal ART restorations was 73% (GIC = 83%; COM = 78%; CAR = 62%) and 49% for occlusoproximal ART restorations (GIC = 56%; COM = 56%; CAR = 36%). CAR restorations were less successful than GIC and COM for both occlusal and occlusoproximal restorations (p 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: GIC and Compomer are clinically more successful than CAR for occlusal and occlusoproximal restorations in primary molars. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Both Compomer and high viscosity glass ionomer cement are suitable materials for ART in primary molars. However, glass carbomer cement should not be used for ART (#NCT02217098).
-
glass carbomer and Compomer for art restorations 3 year results of a randomized clinical trial
Clinical Oral Investigations, 2019Co-Authors: Isabel Cristina Olegario, Daniela Hesse, Fausto Medeiros Mendes, Clarissa Calil Bonifacio, Daniela Procida RaggioAbstract:To evaluate the survival of atraumatic restorative treatment (ART) restorations using high viscosity glass ionomer cement (GIC), Compomer (COM), and glass carbomer (CAR) for occlusal and occlusoproximal cavitated dentin caries lesions in primary molars. A total of 568 4–7-year-old children (287 occlusoproximal and 281 occlusal cavities) were selected in Barueri, Brazil. The patients were randomly allocated in three groups: GIC, COM, and CAR. All treatments were performed on school setting following ART premises. Evaluations were performed after 2, 6, 12, 18, 24, and 36 months. Restoration survival was evaluated using Kaplan-Meier survival analysis and log-rank test, while Cox regression analysis was used for testing association with clinical factors (α = 5%). The overall survival rate after 3 years of occlusal ART restorations was 73% (GIC = 83%; COM = 78%; CAR = 62%) and 49% for occlusoproximal ART restorations (GIC = 56%; COM = 56%; CAR = 36%). CAR restorations were less successful than GIC and COM for both occlusal and occlusoproximal restorations (p 0.05). GIC and Compomer are clinically more successful than CAR for occlusal and occlusoproximal restorations in primary molars. Both Compomer and high viscosity glass ionomer cement are suitable materials for ART in primary molars. However, glass carbomer cement should not be used for ART (#NCT02217098).
Daniela Hesse - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
glass carbomer and Compomer for art restorations 3 year results of a randomized clinical trial
Clinical Oral Investigations, 2019Co-Authors: Isabel Cristina Olegario, Daniela Hesse, Fausto Medeiros Mendes, Clarissa Calil Bonifacio, Daniela Procida RaggioAbstract:OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the survival of atraumatic restorative treatment (ART) restorations using high viscosity glass ionomer cement (GIC), Compomer (COM), and glass carbomer (CAR) for occlusal and occlusoproximal cavitated dentin caries lesions in primary molars. METHODS: A total of 568 4-7-year-old children (287 occlusoproximal and 281 occlusal cavities) were selected in Barueri, Brazil. The patients were randomly allocated in three groups: GIC, COM, and CAR. All treatments were performed on school setting following ART premises. Evaluations were performed after 2, 6, 12, 18, 24, and 36 months. Restoration survival was evaluated using Kaplan-Meier survival analysis and log-rank test, while Cox regression analysis was used for testing association with clinical factors (α = 5%). RESULTS: The overall survival rate after 3 years of occlusal ART restorations was 73% (GIC = 83%; COM = 78%; CAR = 62%) and 49% for occlusoproximal ART restorations (GIC = 56%; COM = 56%; CAR = 36%). CAR restorations were less successful than GIC and COM for both occlusal and occlusoproximal restorations (p 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: GIC and Compomer are clinically more successful than CAR for occlusal and occlusoproximal restorations in primary molars. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Both Compomer and high viscosity glass ionomer cement are suitable materials for ART in primary molars. However, glass carbomer cement should not be used for ART (#NCT02217098).
-
glass carbomer and Compomer for art restorations 3 year results of a randomized clinical trial
Clinical Oral Investigations, 2019Co-Authors: Isabel Cristina Olegario, Daniela Hesse, Fausto Medeiros Mendes, Clarissa Calil Bonifacio, Daniela Procida RaggioAbstract:To evaluate the survival of atraumatic restorative treatment (ART) restorations using high viscosity glass ionomer cement (GIC), Compomer (COM), and glass carbomer (CAR) for occlusal and occlusoproximal cavitated dentin caries lesions in primary molars. A total of 568 4–7-year-old children (287 occlusoproximal and 281 occlusal cavities) were selected in Barueri, Brazil. The patients were randomly allocated in three groups: GIC, COM, and CAR. All treatments were performed on school setting following ART premises. Evaluations were performed after 2, 6, 12, 18, 24, and 36 months. Restoration survival was evaluated using Kaplan-Meier survival analysis and log-rank test, while Cox regression analysis was used for testing association with clinical factors (α = 5%). The overall survival rate after 3 years of occlusal ART restorations was 73% (GIC = 83%; COM = 78%; CAR = 62%) and 49% for occlusoproximal ART restorations (GIC = 56%; COM = 56%; CAR = 36%). CAR restorations were less successful than GIC and COM for both occlusal and occlusoproximal restorations (p 0.05). GIC and Compomer are clinically more successful than CAR for occlusal and occlusoproximal restorations in primary molars. Both Compomer and high viscosity glass ionomer cement are suitable materials for ART in primary molars. However, glass carbomer cement should not be used for ART (#NCT02217098).
Patricia P Gilner - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
a clinical evaluation of a resin modified glass ionomer restorative material
Journal of the American Dental Association, 1995Co-Authors: Douglas M Barnes, Lawrence W Blank, James C Gingell, Patricia P GilnerAbstract:Compomers, resin-modified glass ionomers, were developed to improve the physical properties and clinical handling of glass ionomers. Compomers can be designed to be light-activated and used as restoratives or liners. This article reports data collected up to 12 months after placement of both Compomer restorations and liners and is part of an ongoing study evaluating the performance of this material. Based on this data, the authors conclude that this new generation of light-activated glass-ionomer restoratives provides clinical results comparable to those recorded for composite resins at 12 months.
Gottfried Schmalz - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Longevity of posterior composite and Compomer restorations in children placed under different types of anesthesia: a retrospective 5-year study
Clinical Oral Investigations, 2020Co-Authors: Andreas Pummer, Fabian Cieplik, Milan Nikolić, Wolfgang Buchalla, Karl-anton Hiller, Gottfried SchmalzAbstract:Objectives The aims of this study were (i) to assess cumulative survival rates of class II resin-based composite and Compomer restorations in primary molars with a 5-year observation period and (ii) to analyze the influence of different types of anesthesia and different localizations of the restorations in the teeth. Methods Patient charts of a private practice for pediatric dentistry were screened for class II resin-based composite (Spectrum TPH3) and Compomer (Dyract Posterior; both Dentsply DeTrey) restorations in primary molars with a 5-year observation period used with Adper Prompt L-Pop (3M-ESPE). One restoration per patient (age ≤ 6 years at placement) was randomly selected. Results Two hundred sixty restorations were included (43% resin-based composites, 57% Compomers). After 5 years, cumulative survival rates were 43% for resin-based composite and 49% for Compomer restorations with no statistically significant differences. There was a tendency for higher survival rates for restorations placed under N_2O inhalation sedation or general anesthesia. Distal-occlusal Compomer restorations showed significantly lower survival rates ( p = 0.003) as compared to mesial-occlusal Compomer restorations. Conclusion Within the limitations of the study, we conclude that type of restorative material as well as the type of anesthesia do not influence restoration survival rates, although restorations placed in patients receiving N_2O inhalation sedation or general anesthesia tend to perform better as compared with patients receiving no anesthesia or only local infiltration. Clinical relevance Resin-based composite and Compomer restorations show similar survival rates of more than 43% (annual failure rates less than 11.5%) after 5 years for restoration of primary molars.
-
longevity of posterior composite and Compomer restorations in children placed under different types of anesthesia a retrospective 5 year study
Clinical Oral Investigations, 2020Co-Authors: Andreas Pummer, Fabian Cieplik, Wolfgang Buchalla, Karl-anton Hiller, Milan Nikolic, Gottfried SchmalzAbstract:The aims of this study were (i) to assess cumulative survival rates of class II resin-based composite and Compomer restorations in primary molars with a 5-year observation period and (ii) to analyze the influence of different types of anesthesia and different localizations of the restorations in the teeth. Patient charts of a private practice for pediatric dentistry were screened for class II resin-based composite (Spectrum TPH3) and Compomer (Dyract Posterior; both Dentsply DeTrey) restorations in primary molars with a 5-year observation period used with Adper Prompt L-Pop (3M-ESPE). One restoration per patient (age ≤ 6 years at placement) was randomly selected. Two hundred sixty restorations were included (43% resin-based composites, 57% Compomers). After 5 years, cumulative survival rates were 43% for resin-based composite and 49% for Compomer restorations with no statistically significant differences. There was a tendency for higher survival rates for restorations placed under N2O inhalation sedation or general anesthesia. Distal-occlusal Compomer restorations showed significantly lower survival rates (p = 0.003) as compared to mesial-occlusal Compomer restorations. Within the limitations of the study, we conclude that type of restorative material as well as the type of anesthesia do not influence restoration survival rates, although restorations placed in patients receiving N2O inhalation sedation or general anesthesia tend to perform better as compared with patients receiving no anesthesia or only local infiltration. Resin-based composite and Compomer restorations show similar survival rates of more than 43% (annual failure rates less than 11.5%) after 5 years for restoration of primary molars.
V Dupuis - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Compomers between glass ionomer cements and composites
Biomaterials, 1998Co-Authors: Jeanmarc Meyer, M A Cattanilorente, V DupuisAbstract:The term 'Compomer' was crafted by the producers of the first commercial material of this kind: a polyacid-modified composite resin, sold as a filling material for some specific applications. This term should recall the composite resins and glass-ionomer cements, since some features of these two generic materials are found in the Compomers. Compomers contain a bifunctional monomer, which should be able to react with the pendant methacrylate groups of other monomers, as well as with the cations liberated by the glass particles. Several products of this kind are now available, and the purpose of this paper is to describe some of their specificities and to compare their influence on the mechanical properties, water uptake and fluoride release.