The Experts below are selected from a list of 300 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform

John B Ludlow - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

M K Nair - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

Geert M. G. Hommez - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • Two-year clinical performance of glass ionomer and resin composite restorations in xerostomic head- and neck-irradiated cancer patients
    Clinical Oral Investigations, 2011
    Co-Authors: Roeland J. G. Moor, Inge G. Stassen, Yoke Veldt, Dries Torbeyns, Geert M. G. Hommez
    Abstract:

    The aim of this study was to evaluate the clinical performance of adhesive filling materials in class V cavities in xerostomic head- and neck-irradiated cancer patients, in terms of marginal adaptation, anatomical form and Recurrent Caries. We selected 35 high-Caries-risk, post-radiation, xerostomic adults with ≥3 cervical carious lesions in the same arch. Every patient received a KetacFil (KF), PhotacFil (PF) and Herculite XRV (HX) restoration. Patients were instructed to use a neutral 1% sodium fluoride gel in custom trays, on a daily basis. After 6, 12, 18 and 24 months, the restorations were examined for material loss, marginal integrity and Recurrent Caries. Fluoride compliance was determined at each recall appointment and recorded as the percentage of recommended use during that interval [compliance of ≤50% = NFUs, >50% = FUs]. Only 30 patients were available for recall at 6 months, with 28 patients at 12 and 18 months, and 27 patients at 24 months. In the NFU group, differences in Recurrent Caries were found between KF and HX at all observation times ( p 

  • Two-year clinical performance of glass ionomer and resin composite restorations in xerostomic head- and neck-irradiated cancer patients
    Clinical Oral Investigations, 2009
    Co-Authors: Roeland De Moor, Inge G. Stassen, Dries Torbeyns, Yoke Van ’t Veldt, Geert M. G. Hommez
    Abstract:

    The aim of this study was to evaluate the clinical performance of adhesive filling materials in class V cavities in xerostomic head- and neck-irradiated cancer patients, in terms of marginal adaptation, anatomical form and Recurrent Caries. We selected 35 high-Caries-risk, post-radiation, xerostomic adults with ≥3 cervical carious lesions in the same arch. Every patient received a KetacFil (KF), PhotacFil (PF) and Herculite XRV (HX) restoration. Patients were instructed to use a neutral 1% sodium fluoride gel in custom trays, on a daily basis. After 6, 12, 18 and 24 months, the restorations were examined for material loss, marginal integrity and Recurrent Caries. Fluoride compliance was determined at each recall appointment and recorded as the percentage of recommended use during that interval [compliance of ≤50% = NFUs, >50% = FUs]. Only 30 patients were available for recall at 6 months, with 28 patients at 12 and 18 months, and 27 patients at 24 months. In the NFU group, differences in Recurrent Caries were found between KF and HX at all observation times (p < 0.05). Differences (p < 0.05) in adaptation and/or anatomical form were found between KF and PF in NFUs after 18 and 24 months. In FUs, significant differences were observed between KF and PF, and KF and HX after 6 and 12 months, between KF and HX, PF and HX after 18 and 24 months. In summary, glass ionomers (especially the conventionally setting formulation) provide clinical Caries inhibition but erode easily, while composite resin provides greater structural integrity.

D A Tyndall - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

John O. Burgess - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • Fluoride-releasing materials and their adhesive characteristics.
    Compendium of continuing education in dentistry, 2008
    Co-Authors: John O. Burgess
    Abstract:

    This article discusses fluoride-releasing materials, including their Caries-inhibiting properties and clinical longevity, as well as provides useful application tips. Based on results from clinical trials, there is growing evidence that fluoride-releasing materials, particularly glass ionomers, reduce the occurrence of Recurrent Caries. As such, they should be employed-especially in the case of high Caries-risk patients-as part of an overall treatment plan for maximum care.

  • Treating root-surface Caries
    Dental Clinics of North America, 2002
    Co-Authors: John O. Burgess, John R. Gallo
    Abstract:

    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 Cariesrisk 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 Cariesrisk 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.

  • Directly placed esthetic restorative materials--the continuum.
    Compendium of continuing education in dentistry, 1996
    Co-Authors: John O. Burgess, Barry K. Norling, Henry Ralph Rawls
    Abstract:

    : Because new restorative materials have had little clinical testing, it is difficult to make specific material recommendations for the esthetic restoration of carious teeth. Although fluoride-releasing materials have long been used successfully to restore carious teeth, little clinical documentation has been presented to support their use to inhibit Recurrent Caries, and their use as an effective restorative material may be questioned. Glass ionomers, compomers, and resin-modified glass ionomers are esthetic fluoride-releasing materials designed to restore teeth by bonding to tooth structure. This article describes the continuum of directly placed esthetic dental restorative materials, the efficacy of amalgam replacement restorative materials, and the role that fluoride-releasing materials may play in the inhibition of Recurrent Caries in vitro and in vivo.

  • Dental materials for the restoration of root surface Caries.
    American Journal of Dentistry, 1995
    Co-Authors: John O. Burgess
    Abstract:

    : Specific material recommendations for the restoration of root surface Caries are difficult because of a lack of data on the clinical performance of restorative materials in these situations. Although silver amalgam has been successfully used to restore carious roots, resin composite, glass ionomer, and resin-modified glass ionomers are also used to restore root surfaces since they are esthetic and bond to tooth structure. Fluoride releasing materials may inhibit Recurrent Caries in restored surfaces; however, clinical documentation of this phenomenon is sparse. This paper describes the efficacy of restorative materials used to restore root surfaces, the dynamic movement of fluoride into and out of restorative materials, and the role that fluoride releasing materials may play in the inhibition of Recurrent Caries in vitro and in vivo. In addition, classifications are given for low, medium, and high Caries risk patients and material recommendations are made for each category of patient.