International journal of clinical pediatric dentistry · 2024
Comparative Evaluation of Two Esthetic Full Coronal Restorative Materials for Primary Incisors.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Dhaker Kanchan Kumari, Tandon Sandeep, Rathore Ambika S, Mathur Rinku, Rai Tripti S, Sharma Surbhi
Аннотация
AIM: This study was designed to compare the clinical efficacy of two esthetic restorative materials, nanoceramic (Magma NT®) and giomer (Beautifil II®), as full coronal restoration in primary maxillary incisors.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 15 patients aged 3-5 years presenting with mutilated primary maxillary incisors due to caries or trauma were selected for the study using randomized simple sampling. A total of 40 maxillary incisors were randomly divided into two equal groups, with 20 teeth in each group. Teeth in group I (GP I) were restored with nanoceramic (Magma NT®) and group II (GP II) with giomer (Beautifil II®). The full coronal restorations were done using strip crowns (3M ESPE). The restorations were evaluated for gross fracture, marginal integrity, and secondary caries according to modified Ryge's criteria [United States Public Health Service (USPHS)] at baseline (immediate postoperative), 3, 6, and 9 months. Parental satisfaction with each type of restoration was also evaluated using the Likert 5-point scale.
RESULTS: The data obtained was statistically analyzed using the Chi-squared test, and the level of significance, that is, the p-value, was determined. The Chi-squared test showed no significant changes to all modified USPHS criteria for each material at baseline and 3-month evaluation period. The changes recorded were after a 3-month follow-up between the two materials; nanoceramic (Magma NT®) restoration demonstrated marginally better than giomer (Beautifil II®) in terms of gross fracture and marginal integrity; however, there was no statically significant difference between them (p > 0.05), while giomer (Beautifil II®) was better than nanoceramic in terms of secondary caries (p < 0.05). Parental satisfaction for both entities was comparable in terms of color and durability; however, they were cost-ineffective.
CONCLUSION: Nanoceramic restoration demonstrated better results in terms of gross fracture and marginal integrity, while giomer was better in terms of secondary caries.
CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Nanoceramics and giomers can serve as an alternative to conventional restorative materials in primary anterior teeth because of their improved qualities.
HOW TO CITE THIS ARTICLE: Dhaker KK, Tandon S, Rathore AS, et al. Comparative Evaluation of Two Esthetic Full Coronal Restorative Materials for Primary Incisors. Int J Clin Pediatr Dent 2024;17(3):321-327.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 15 patients aged 3-5 years presenting with mutilated primary maxillary incisors due to caries or trauma were selected for the study using randomized simple sampling. A total of 40 maxillary incisors were randomly divided into two equal groups, with 20 teeth in each group. Teeth in group I (GP I) were restored with nanoceramic (Magma NT®) and group II (GP II) with giomer (Beautifil II®). The full coronal restorations were done using strip crowns (3M ESPE). The restorations were evaluated for gross fracture, marginal integrity, and secondary caries according to modified Ryge's criteria [United States Public Health Service (USPHS)] at baseline (immediate postoperative), 3, 6, and 9 months. Parental satisfaction with each type of restoration was also evaluated using the Likert 5-point scale.
RESULTS: The data obtained was statistically analyzed using the Chi-squared test, and the level of significance, that is, the p-value, was determined. The Chi-squared test showed no significant changes to all modified USPHS criteria for each material at baseline and 3-month evaluation period. The changes recorded were after a 3-month follow-up between the two materials; nanoceramic (Magma NT®) restoration demonstrated marginally better than giomer (Beautifil II®) in terms of gross fracture and marginal integrity; however, there was no statically significant difference between them (p > 0.05), while giomer (Beautifil II®) was better than nanoceramic in terms of secondary caries (p < 0.05). Parental satisfaction for both entities was comparable in terms of color and durability; however, they were cost-ineffective.
CONCLUSION: Nanoceramic restoration demonstrated better results in terms of gross fracture and marginal integrity, while giomer was better in terms of secondary caries.
CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Nanoceramics and giomers can serve as an alternative to conventional restorative materials in primary anterior teeth because of their improved qualities.
HOW TO CITE THIS ARTICLE: Dhaker KK, Tandon S, Rathore AS, et al. Comparative Evaluation of Two Esthetic Full Coronal Restorative Materials for Primary Incisors. Int J Clin Pediatr Dent 2024;17(3):321-327.