International dental journal · 2002
Restoration of teeth with more-viscous glass ionomer cements following radiation-induced caries.
СтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Hu J Y, Li Y Q, Smales R J, Yip K H K
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To assess the suitability of more-viscous conventional restorative glass ionomer cements (GICs) in a high-caries risk group of patients.
METHODS: Fifteen adult patients with radiation-induced caries were treated at a dental hospital by one dentist. Two encapsulated aesthetic GICs were used in each patient to restore 146 carious lesions in the exposed dentine and cementum of 93 teeth. The restorations were assessed directly over two years for their retention, secondary caries, anatomic form, marginal integrity, marginal discolouration, and surface texture.
RESULTS: Both GICs were placed in similar sized cavities (P = 0.63). After two years, although 30.0% of Ketac-Molar Aplicap and 12.5% of Fuji IX GP restorations had been lost (P = 0.01), there were no instances of secondary caries. The remaining GICs showed ongoing marginal deterioration, but there were very few instances where this required the repair or replacement of the restorations. No restorations failed from surface erosion.
CONCLUSIONS: In these high-caries risk patients the placement of more-viscous GICs appeared to prevent secondary caries, even when the restorations were subsequently lost.
METHODS: Fifteen adult patients with radiation-induced caries were treated at a dental hospital by one dentist. Two encapsulated aesthetic GICs were used in each patient to restore 146 carious lesions in the exposed dentine and cementum of 93 teeth. The restorations were assessed directly over two years for their retention, secondary caries, anatomic form, marginal integrity, marginal discolouration, and surface texture.
RESULTS: Both GICs were placed in similar sized cavities (P = 0.63). After two years, although 30.0% of Ketac-Molar Aplicap and 12.5% of Fuji IX GP restorations had been lost (P = 0.01), there were no instances of secondary caries. The remaining GICs showed ongoing marginal deterioration, but there were very few instances where this required the repair or replacement of the restorations. No restorations failed from surface erosion.
CONCLUSIONS: In these high-caries risk patients the placement of more-viscous GICs appeared to prevent secondary caries, even when the restorations were subsequently lost.