A clinical evaluation of the restoration of root surface caries

Steven M. Levy, Mark Jensen

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

15 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Root surface caries is of growing importance because its prevalence increases with age, and the population of the United States is growing older while edentulism and tooth loss rates have declined. Few clinical studies have evaluated materials used for the restoration of active root caries lesions. This study evaluated a Type II glass ionomer cement and a microfilled composite resin, both placed in preparations without mechanical retention or acid etching of enamel, in the restoration of root caries. Fifty adult volunteers with active root caries received one or both materials with the material chosen randomly. Patients were recalled after 24 months to evaluate restorations for retention, additional caries, marginal integrity, and overall clinical acceptability. Seventy‐seven restorations were available for re‐evaluation. Forty‐five percent of the glass ionomer and 73% of the composite restorations were clinically acceptable after 24 months. Of the glass ionomers, 39% were fully retained compared with 73% of composite restorations. Among those partially or fully retained, 25% of the glass ionomer restorations had minimal loss of marginal integrity and 30% had extensive loss while 53% and 9% of composite restorations had minimal and extensive loss, respectively. Most restorations were clinically unacceptable because of restorative material loss. Substantial numbers of glass ionomer cement and composite resin restorations were lost. This may be the result of difficulties in maintaining isolation and obtaining a proper gingival seal. Thus, routine use of mechanical retention is still highly recommended to reduce the loss of restorative material.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)156-160
Number of pages5
JournalSpecial Care in Dentistry
Volume10
Issue number5
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 1 1990

Fingerprint

Root Caries
Glass Ionomer Cements
Composite Resins
Tooth Loss
Dental Enamel
Volunteers
Acids
Population
glass ionomer

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Dentistry(all)

Cite this

A clinical evaluation of the restoration of root surface caries. / Levy, Steven M.; Jensen, Mark.

In: Special Care in Dentistry, Vol. 10, No. 5, 01.01.1990, p. 156-160.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Levy, Steven M. ; Jensen, Mark. / A clinical evaluation of the restoration of root surface caries. In: Special Care in Dentistry. 1990 ; Vol. 10, No. 5. pp. 156-160.
@article{3aa7277b650941ab917920a4c4c22742,
title = "A clinical evaluation of the restoration of root surface caries",
abstract = "Root surface caries is of growing importance because its prevalence increases with age, and the population of the United States is growing older while edentulism and tooth loss rates have declined. Few clinical studies have evaluated materials used for the restoration of active root caries lesions. This study evaluated a Type II glass ionomer cement and a microfilled composite resin, both placed in preparations without mechanical retention or acid etching of enamel, in the restoration of root caries. Fifty adult volunteers with active root caries received one or both materials with the material chosen randomly. Patients were recalled after 24 months to evaluate restorations for retention, additional caries, marginal integrity, and overall clinical acceptability. Seventy‐seven restorations were available for re‐evaluation. Forty‐five percent of the glass ionomer and 73{\%} of the composite restorations were clinically acceptable after 24 months. Of the glass ionomers, 39{\%} were fully retained compared with 73{\%} of composite restorations. Among those partially or fully retained, 25{\%} of the glass ionomer restorations had minimal loss of marginal integrity and 30{\%} had extensive loss while 53{\%} and 9{\%} of composite restorations had minimal and extensive loss, respectively. Most restorations were clinically unacceptable because of restorative material loss. Substantial numbers of glass ionomer cement and composite resin restorations were lost. This may be the result of difficulties in maintaining isolation and obtaining a proper gingival seal. Thus, routine use of mechanical retention is still highly recommended to reduce the loss of restorative material.",
author = "Levy, {Steven M.} and Mark Jensen",
year = "1990",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1111/j.1754-4505.1990.tb00784.x",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "10",
pages = "156--160",
journal = "Special Care in Dentistry",
issn = "0275-1879",
publisher = "Wiley-Blackwell",
number = "5",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - A clinical evaluation of the restoration of root surface caries

AU - Levy, Steven M.

AU - Jensen, Mark

PY - 1990/1/1

Y1 - 1990/1/1

N2 - Root surface caries is of growing importance because its prevalence increases with age, and the population of the United States is growing older while edentulism and tooth loss rates have declined. Few clinical studies have evaluated materials used for the restoration of active root caries lesions. This study evaluated a Type II glass ionomer cement and a microfilled composite resin, both placed in preparations without mechanical retention or acid etching of enamel, in the restoration of root caries. Fifty adult volunteers with active root caries received one or both materials with the material chosen randomly. Patients were recalled after 24 months to evaluate restorations for retention, additional caries, marginal integrity, and overall clinical acceptability. Seventy‐seven restorations were available for re‐evaluation. Forty‐five percent of the glass ionomer and 73% of the composite restorations were clinically acceptable after 24 months. Of the glass ionomers, 39% were fully retained compared with 73% of composite restorations. Among those partially or fully retained, 25% of the glass ionomer restorations had minimal loss of marginal integrity and 30% had extensive loss while 53% and 9% of composite restorations had minimal and extensive loss, respectively. Most restorations were clinically unacceptable because of restorative material loss. Substantial numbers of glass ionomer cement and composite resin restorations were lost. This may be the result of difficulties in maintaining isolation and obtaining a proper gingival seal. Thus, routine use of mechanical retention is still highly recommended to reduce the loss of restorative material.

AB - Root surface caries is of growing importance because its prevalence increases with age, and the population of the United States is growing older while edentulism and tooth loss rates have declined. Few clinical studies have evaluated materials used for the restoration of active root caries lesions. This study evaluated a Type II glass ionomer cement and a microfilled composite resin, both placed in preparations without mechanical retention or acid etching of enamel, in the restoration of root caries. Fifty adult volunteers with active root caries received one or both materials with the material chosen randomly. Patients were recalled after 24 months to evaluate restorations for retention, additional caries, marginal integrity, and overall clinical acceptability. Seventy‐seven restorations were available for re‐evaluation. Forty‐five percent of the glass ionomer and 73% of the composite restorations were clinically acceptable after 24 months. Of the glass ionomers, 39% were fully retained compared with 73% of composite restorations. Among those partially or fully retained, 25% of the glass ionomer restorations had minimal loss of marginal integrity and 30% had extensive loss while 53% and 9% of composite restorations had minimal and extensive loss, respectively. Most restorations were clinically unacceptable because of restorative material loss. Substantial numbers of glass ionomer cement and composite resin restorations were lost. This may be the result of difficulties in maintaining isolation and obtaining a proper gingival seal. Thus, routine use of mechanical retention is still highly recommended to reduce the loss of restorative material.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0025495265&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0025495265&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1111/j.1754-4505.1990.tb00784.x

DO - 10.1111/j.1754-4505.1990.tb00784.x

M3 - Article

VL - 10

SP - 156

EP - 160

JO - Special Care in Dentistry

JF - Special Care in Dentistry

SN - 0275-1879

IS - 5

ER -