Effect of incorporation of nano-hydroxyapatite particles on the clinical performance of conventional and resin-modified glass ionomer cement in class V cavities: split-mouth, randomized controlled trial

Background The aim of this study was to compare the clinical performance of Nano-hydroxyapatite-modified conventional glass ionomer cement (NHA-GIC) and Nano-hydroxyapatite-modified resin-modified glass ionomer cement (NHA-RMGIC) with conventional glass ionomer (CGIC) and resin-modified glass ionome...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Bulletin of the National Research Centre 2021-11, Vol.45 (1), p.1-15, Article 199
Main Authors: Zaki, Zeinab M., Niazy, Maha A., Zaazou, Mohamed H., Nagi, Shaymaa M., Elkassas, Dina W.
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Cavities
Class V
Dental caries
Dental cement
Dentistry
Glass ionomer
Glass ionomer cements
Humanities and Social Sciences
Hydroxyapatite
Integrity
Modified USPHS criteria
multidisciplinary
Nano-hydroxyapatite
Public health
Resin-modified glass ionomer
Resins
Science
Science (multidisciplinary)
Statistical analysis
Surface layers
Texture
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Background The aim of this study was to compare the clinical performance of Nano-hydroxyapatite-modified conventional glass ionomer cement (NHA-GIC) and Nano-hydroxyapatite-modified resin-modified glass ionomer cement (NHA-RMGIC) with conventional glass ionomer (CGIC) and resin-modified glass ionomer (RMGIC) in the treatment of caries class V cavities. Sixty patients with at least two cervical caries lesions participated in this study. A total of 120 class V cavities were prepared and then restored using different restorative materials. Restorations were clinically evaluated according to modified United States Public Health Service criteria at baseline and after 3, 6 and 9 months. Results There was no statistically significant difference in the clinical performance of the different restorative materials at any of the follow-up periods. However, throughout the study period there was a statistically significant change in the color match, surface texture and marginal integrity in NHA-GIC. A statistically significant change in the surface texture and marginal integrity was found in GIC. On the other hand, there was only a statistically significant change in surface texture in NHA-RMGIC. Conclusions All tested restorative materials, control (CGIC and RMGIC) as well as experimental (NHA-GIC and NHA-RMGIC), exhibited comparable clinical performance after 9 months follow-up.
ISSN:2522-8307
2522-8307
DOI:10.1186/s42269-021-00655-2