The Experts below are selected from a list of 507 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
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.
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.
John O. Burgess - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
compressive strength fluoride release and recharge of fluoride releasing materials
Biomaterials, 2003Co-Authors: Xiaoming Xu, John O. BurgessAbstract:Abstract The compressive strength, fluoride releases and recharge profiles of 15 commercial fluoride-releasing restorative materials have been studied. The materials include glass ionomers (Fuji IX, Ketac Molar, Ketac Silver, and Miracle Mix), resin-modified glass ionomers (Fuji II LC Improved, Photac-Fil, and Vitremer), Compomers (Compoglass, Dyract AP, F2000, and Hytac) and composite resins (Ariston pHc, Solitaire, Surefil and Tetric Ceram). A negative linear correlation was found between the compressive strength and fluoride release ( r 2 =0.7741), i.e., restorative materials with high fluoride release have lower mechanical properties. The fluoride-releasing ability can be partially regenerated or recharged by using a topical fluoride agent. In general, materials with higher initial fluoride release have higher recharge capability ( r 2 =0.7088). Five equations have been used in curve fitting to describe the cumulative fluoride release from different materials. The equation [ F ] c =[ F ] I (1− e −bt )+β t best describes the cumulative fluoride release for most glass ionomers, resin-modified glass ionomers, and some high fluoride-releasing Compomers and composites, whereas [F] c =[F] I /( t 1/2 + t )+ αt best describes the cumulative fluoride release for most Compomers and composite resins. The clinic applications of different fluoride-releasing materials have also been discussed.
-
Treating root-surface caries
Dental Clinics of North America, 2002Co-Authors: John O. Burgess, John R. GalloAbstract:Gingival recession associated with aging and periodontal therapy exposes root surfaces, which are then susceptible to root caries. Resin-modified glass ionomer, glass ionomer, compomer, composite resin, and amalgam restorative materials are frequently used to restore carious root lesions. Amalgam continues to be used successfully to restore root caries. Resin composites, Compomers, glass ionomers, and resin-modified glass ionomers are increasing in popularity because they are aesthetic and bond to tooth structure. Unfortunately, only modest evidence from controlled clinical trials is available to support the use of any of these materials for high caies—risk patients. Recurrent caries receives little attention from investigators of clinical trials, who normally select low caries—risk patients in whom to place restorations. In the most recent meeting of the International Association for Dental Research, out of 2167 abstracts only one paper was presented that summarized the results of a clinical trial evaluating recurrent caries associated with restorative materials in high caries—risk patients. [1] This lack of data makes specific material recommendations for the restoration of root-surface caries difficult, although some data are appearing. Recent evidence demonstrates that fluoride-releasing materials inhibit recurrent caries in restored root surfaces. Although fluoride supplements reduce caries in high-risk patients, the effects seen from these materials are related to the fluoride released. Fluoride-containing solutions have a dose-response relationship to caries. The higher the fluoride in the solution or released from a restoration, the greater the protection. Fluoride gels, delivered in trays, bathe the tooth with significantly greater amounts of fluoride compared with the amounts of fluoride released from restorative materials. The percent of caries reduction when gels are used is therefore greater.
R H Tian - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
a comprehensive evaluation of application of light cured colored compomer for deciduous teeth
Journal of Biological Regulators and Homeostatic Agents, 2017Co-Authors: L J Yan, P Chang, R H TianAbstract:Twinky Star colored compomer produced by VOCO GmbH is a new type of filling material designed with seven different colors. Previous studies have shown that using the colored filling material can induce childrens curiosity and increase the acceptance for dental treatment. However, few studies have been conducted to evaluate it. Hence, the present study was designed to assess the mechanical and adhesive properties of this new compomer, examine its biological safety, and evaluate the effects of its clinical application on childrens adherence to dental treatment and the subsequent therapeutic outcomes. We found that Twinky Star compomer has a high compressive strength, good biaxial flexural strength, low wear rate, and good adhesive properties, and had little in vitro cytotoxic effects and did not cause apparent hemolysis in vivo. Finally, application of the compomer helped to improve childrens acceptance of treatment without affecting the subsequent therapeutic outcomes in the follow-up examinations. To summarize, the findings suggest that Twinky Star compomer meets the performance requirements for dental fillings, and can be recommended for future clinical application.
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.