Bioactive Resin Modified GIC vs. Conventional One in Vivo and in Vitro Study | ||
| Egyptian Dental Journal | ||
| Article 1, Volume 64, Issue 4 - October (Orthodontics, Pediatric & Preventive Dentistry), October 2018, Pages 2917-2931 PDF (2.91 M) | ||
| Document Type: Original Article | ||
| DOI: 10.21608/edj.2018.78103 | ||
| Authors | ||
| Talat Mohamed Beltagy1; Abeer A.M.M Elhatery2 | ||
| 1Assistant Professor of Pedodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Kafrelsheikh University, Egypt. | ||
| 2Lecturer of Dental Biomaterial, Faculty of Dentistry, Kafrelsheikh University, Egypt. | ||
| Abstract | ||
| PURPOSE: To evaluate the bioactive resin modified GIC material (Activa) vs. conventional one (Vitremer) clinically and laboratory. Materials & Methods: Clinically: Fifteen healthy children of both sexes aged (4-7) having a bilateral similar initial occlusal caries on the lower 2nd primary molars were selected. A split-mouth design was used where conventional Class I cavities were prepared on carious molars. One side was restored with Activa and the contra-lateral side restored with Vitremer (control). The patients were recalled for clinical evaluation at 3, 6 and 12 months postoperative. The modified United States Public Health Service (USPHS) evaluation criteria were used. Laboratory: included: 1. Mechanical strength tests (compressive and diametral tensile). 2. Shear bond strength test between both restorative materials and dentin. Statistical analysis: Mann Whitney test was used for clinical evaluation, while t-test and ANOVA were used for laboratory evaluation. The significance level was set at P ≤ 0.05. Results: Clinically: The overall clinical outcome showed no significant difference between both groups in all evaluated criteria (p>0.05). Laboratory: Activa showed higher values than Vitremer in all tested groups and the differences were significant (p<0.05) Conclusion: Activa recorded better scores than Vitremer in nearly all tested clinical criteria but without significant differences between them during recall-time intervals. But, the laboratory differences in all tested groups were significant. | ||
| Keywords | ||
| Bioactive resin modified GIC; Conventional resin modified GIC; Mechanical tests; Shear bond strength | ||
|
Statistics Article View: 179 PDF Download: 624 |
||
