Citation Information :
Sharma S. Comparative Evaluation of Two Esthetic Full Coronal Restorative Materials for Primary Incisors. Int J Clin Pediatr Dent 2024; 17 (3):321-327.
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.
Grewal N, Seth R. Comparative in vivo evaluation of restoring severely mutilated primary anterior teeth with biological post and crown preparation and reinforced composite restoration. J Indian Soc Pedod Prev Dent 2008;26(4):141–148. DOI: 10.4103/0970-4388.44028
Sahana S, Vasa AA, Shekhar R. Esthetic crown for primary teeth: a review. Ann Essence Dent 2010;2(2):87–93. DOI: 10.5368/aedj.2010.2.2.87-93.pdf
Mendes FM, De Benedetto MS, del Conte Zardetto CG, et al. Resin composite restoration in primary anterior teeth using short-post technique and strip crowns: a case report. Quintessence Int 2004;35(9):689–692.
Hegde MN, Hegde P, Bhandary S, et al. An evalution of compressive strength of newer nanocomposite: an in vitro study. J Conserv Dent 2011;14(1):36–39. DOI: 10.4103/0972-0707.80734
Al-Dahan ZA, Al-Attar AI, Al-Rubaee HE. A comparative study evaluating the microleakage of different types of restorative materials used in restoration of pulpotomized primary molars. J Bagh Coll Dent 2012;24:150–154.
Fron Chabouis H, Smail Faugeron V, Attal JP. Clinical efficacy of composite versus ceramic inlays and onlays: a systematic review. Dent Mater 2013;29(12):1209–1218. DOI: 10.1016/j.dental.2013.09.009
Khurshid Z, Zafar M, Qasim S, et al. Advances in nanotechnology for restorative dentistry. Materials (Basel) 2015;8(2):717–731. DOI: 10.3390/ma8020717
Quader SM, Alam MS, Bashar AK, et al. Compressive strength, flouride release and recharge of giomer. Update Dent Coll J 2012;2:28–37. DOI: 10.3329/updcj.v2i2.15533
Gordan VV, Mondragon E, Watson RE, et al. A clinical evaluation of a self-etching primer and a giomer restorative material: results at eight years. J Am Dent Assoc 2007;138(5):621–627. DOI: 10.14219/jada.archive.2007.0233
Schirrmeister JF, Huber K, Hellwig E, et al. Two-year evaluation of a new nano-ceramic restorative material. Clin Oral Investig 2006;10(3):181–186. DOI: 10.1007/s00784-006-0048-1
Kupietzky A. Bonded resin composite strip crowns for primary incisors: Clinical tips for a successful outcome. Pediatr Dent 2002;24(2):145–148.
Harun NA. Clinical performance of restorative materials in primary molar teeth. US National Library of Medicine.
Van Ende A, De Munck J, Lise DP, et al. Bulk-fill composites: a review of the current literature. J Adhes Dent 2017;19(2):95–109. DOI: 10.3290/j.jad.a38141
Jyothi K, Annapurna S, Kumar AS, et al. Clinical evaluation of giomer- and resin-modified glass ionomer cement in class V noncarious cervical lesions: an in vivo study. J Conserv Dent 2011;14(4):409–413. DOI: 10.4103/0972-0707.87214
Efes BG, Dörter C, Gömeç Y. Clinical evaluation of an ormocer, a nanofill composite and a hybrid composite at 2 years. Am J Dent 2006;19(4):236–240.
Itota T, Carrick TE, Yoshiyama M, et al. Fluoride release and recharge in giomer, compomer and resin composite. Dent Mater 2004;20(9):789–795. DOI: 10.1016/j.dental.2003.11.009
Ikemura K, Tay FR, Endo T, et al. A review of chemical-approach and ultramorphological studies on the development of fluoride-releasing dental adhesives comprising new pre-reacted glass ionomer (PRG) fillers. Dent Mater J 2008;27(3):315–339. DOI: 10.4012/dmj.27.315
Miyauchi T. The effect of giomer restorative materials on demineralized dentin. 2010. IADR Abstract 135006.
Shimazu K, Ogata K, Karibe H. Evaluation of the ion-releasing and recharging abilities of a resin-based fissure sealant containing S-PRG filler. Dent Mater J 2011;30(6):923–927. DOI: 10.4012/dmj.2011-124
Fujimoto Y, Iwasa M, Murayama R, et al. Detection of ions released from S-PRG fillers and their modulation effect. Dent Mater J 2010;29(4):392–397. DOI: 10.4012/dmj.2010-015
Saku S, Kotake H, Scougall-Vilchis RJ, et al. Antibacterial activity of composite resin with glass-ionomer filler particles. Dent Mater J 2010;29(2):193–198. DOI: 10.4012/dmj.2009-050
Honda T, Yamamoto K, Hirose M. Study on the firm substance produced from S-PRG filler. J Conserv Dent 2002;45:42–51.
Okuyama K, Okuyama YI, Pereira PN, et al. Fluoride release and uptake by various dental materials after fluoride application. Am J Dent 2006;19:123–127.
Akimoto N, Ohmori K, Hanabusa M, et al. An eighteen-month clinical evaluation of posterior restorations with fluoride releasing adhesive and composite systems. Dent Mater J 2011;30(3):411–418. DOI: 10.4012/dmj.2010-205
Tian F, Yap AU, Wang X, et al. Effect of staining solutions on color of pre-reacted glass-ionomer containing composites. Dent Mater J 2012;31(3):384–388. DOI: 10.4012/dmj.2011-223
Zimmerman BF, Rawls HR, Querens AE. Prevention of in vitro secondary caries with an experimental fluoride-exchanging restorative resin. J Dent Res 1984;63(5):689–692. DOI: 10.1177/00220345840630051701
Tysowsky G, Jensen M, Sheth J. Anticariogenic potential of fluoride releasing restorative materials. J Dent Res 1988;67:145.
Donly KJ, Nelson JJ. Fluoride release of restorative materials exposed to a fluoridated dentifrice. ASDC J Dent Child 1997;64:249–250.
Jensen ME, Wefel JS, Hammesfahr PD. Fluoride-releasing liners: in vitro recurrent caries. Gen Dent 1991;39(1):12–17.
