Buradasınız

Anasayfa » Content

SÜT DİŞLERİNDE FARKLI TEKNİKLERLE UYGULANAN RESTORASYONLARIN KLİNİK BAŞARISI

CUNICAL SUCCESS OF RESTORATIONS APPLIED WITH DIFFERENT TECHNIQUES TO THE DECIDUOUS TEETH

Journal Name:

  • Atatürk Üniversitesi Diş Hekimliği Fakültesi Dergisi

Publication Year:

  • 1998

Key Words:

Keywords (Original Language):

Author NameUniversity of AuthorFaculty of Author
Abstract (2. Language): 
Nowadays, various investigations have been carried out to improve filling materials and methods for the successful treatment of the deciduous teeth. The present work has been performed for examining the validity of sandwich technique for deciduous teeth, since in vivo works related to sandwich technique is generally limited. Class II cavities were prepared on 212 primary molars of the patients in the 6-9 year age group. Cavities in that group were divided into four subgroups and were restored by open and dosed sandwich techniques, glass ionomcr cement, and composite resin. The patients were recalled for controls of their restorations after three, six, nine and twelve months, revaluations were made bv using the United States Public Health Service (USPHS) criteria. The data were evaluated by chi-square analysis, it luis been found the success order of the restorations among groups was as follows. Closed sandwich, composiLe resin, open sandwich, and glass ionomer cement. We concluded that sandwich and composite restorations could successfully apply to the class II cavities of primary molars.
Bookmark/Search this post with
Abstract (Original Language): 
Günümüzde süt dişlerinin tedavisinde başarılı olabilecek dolgu maddelerinin ve yöntemlerinin geliştirilmesi amacıyla farklı araştırmalar yapı (maktadır-Sandviç teknik ile ilgili in vivo çalışmaların çok sınırb olduğu saptandığından, sandviç tekniğin süt dişlerinde geçerliliğini gözlemek amacıyla bu çalışma yapıldı. 6-9 yag grubundaki çocuk hastaların 212 adet süt azı dişlerine Il.sınıf kaviteler açıldı. Kaviteler, 4 gruba ayrılarak, açık ve kapalı sandviç tekniği, cam iyonomer siman ve kompozit rezin ile restorasyonları tamamlandı. Hastalar, 3 aylık aralarla kontrole çağrılarak, değerlendirmeler United States Public Health Service (USPHS) kriterleri kullanılarak yapıldı. Elde edilen verilere X^testi uygulandı. Gruplar arasında başarılı restorasyonlar sıras] ile kapalı sandviç, kompozit rezin, açık sandviç ve cam iyonomer siman grubu olarak bulundu. Sonuçlar, süt dişlerinin Il.sjnıf kavitelermde- sandviç ve kompozit dolguların başarı ile uygulanabileceğini düşündürmektedir.
FULL TEXT (PDF): 
PDF icon arastirmax-sut-dislerinde-farkli-tekniklerle-uygulanan-restorasyonlarin-klinik-basarisi.pdf
  • 2
17-24
  • Turkish

REFERENCES

References: 

1. Aboush YEY, Jenkins CBG, An evaluation of the bonding of glass-ionomer restoratives to dentine and enamel. Br Dent J 1986; 161: 179-84.
2. Aboushala A, Kuge] G, Hurley E. Class II composite resin restorations using glass-ionomer liners: Microlcakage studies. J Clin Pediatr Dent 1996; 21: 67-70.
3. Altay AN. Tip II cam
iyonome
r sımanlarm süt dişi mine ve denünine bağlanma kuvvetlerinin karşılaştırmalı olarak incelenmesi. Doktora Tezi Hacettepe Üniv Diş Hek Fak. Ankara: 1991.
4. Borba de Araujo F, Garcia-Godoy F. A comparison ol" three resin bonding agents to primary tooth dentin. Pediatr Dent 1997; 19: 253-7.
5. Cooley RL, Barkmeier WW. Dentinal shear bond strength, microlcakage, and contraction gap of visible light-polymerized liners/bases. Quintessence lnt 1991; 22: 467-74.
6. Croll TP, Phillips RW. Six years' experience with glass-ionomer-silver cermet cement. Quintessence Int. 1991;22:783-93.
7. Croll TP, Killian CM, Helpin ML. A restorative dentistry renaissance for children: Light-hardened glass ionomer/resin cement. J Dent Child 1993; 60: 89-94.
8. Croll TP, Helpjn ML, Class II vitremer restoration of primary molars. J Dent Child 1995 ; 62: 17-21.
9. Ferrari M, Mason PN, Bettelli E. A new dentinal bonding agent and microfiiled resin system: A 2-ycar clinical report. Quintessence lnt 1990; 21: 875-81.
fO. Forstcn L, Karjafainen S. Glass ionomers in proximal cavities of primary molars, Scand J Dent Res 1990;98:70-3.
11. Harelen L. Clinical experience with glass ionomer for proximal fillings. Acta Odontol Scand 1993; 51: 195-200.
12. Fuks AB. Shapira J. Bielak 5. Clinical evaluation of a glass-ionomer cement used as a class If restorative material in primary molars. J Pcdodontics 1984; 8: 393-6.
13. Fusayama T. Indications for self-cured and light-cured adhesive composite resins. J Prosthct Dent 1992;67:46-51.
14. Garcia-Godoy F. Glass ionomer materials in class II composite resin restorations: To etch or not to etch? Quintessence lnt 1988; 19: 241-2.
] 5- Geurtsen W, Schoclcr U, A 4-year retrospective clinical study of Class 1 and Class II composite restorations. J Dent 1997;25:229-32.
16- Gunday
M
, Türkmen C. Başaran B. Işınla ve kimyasal olarak sertleşen cam iyonomer siman yüzeylerine asit uygulanmasının yüzey morfolojisi üzerine etkisinin incelenmesi. T Ü Diş Hek Fak Dcrg 1994; 28: 17 22.
17. Ihckcl R, VQSS A. A comparison of glass ce rmei ceme n t and am al gam restorati ons in prima ry molars. J Dent Child 1990; 57: 184-8.
18. Hinoura K, Moore BK, Phillips RW, Tensile bond strength between glass ionomer cements and compoiile renins. JADA 1987; 114: 167-72.
19.
Karta
l M. Bilimsel araştırmalarda hipotez testleri, pararîletrik Ve nonparametrik teknikler. Atatürk Üniv İ İ B F Yayını (176) Erzurum: Doğu Ofset Matbaacılık, 1993; 164-72, 183-7.
20. Krsibbs PL The clinical performance of a glass polyalkenoate (glass ionomer) cement used in a "sandwich" technique with a composite resin to restore class II cavities. Br Dent J 1992; 172: 103-7.
21. Lacy AM, Young DA. Modem concepts and materials for the pediatric dentist. Am Academy Pediatr Dent 1996; 18: 469-78.
22. Leini'cldcr KF. New developments in resin restorative systems. JADA 1997; 128:573-81.
23. Lidums A, Wilkie R, Smales R. Occlusal glass ionomer cermet, resin sandwich and amalgam restorations :A 2-year clinical study (Abstracts of special interest) J Clin Pediatr Dent 1996; 20: 178,
24. Mangum Fl, Berry III F.A, Pankh UK, Udd D-Optimal etching time of glass ionomer cement for maximum bond of composite resin. JADA 1990; 120; 535-S.
25. Mcljcan JW, Wilson AD. The clinical development of the glass-ionomer cements. L Formulations and properties. Aust Dent J 1977; 22: 31-6.
26. McLean JW, Prosser HJ. Wilson AD. The use of glass-ionomer cements in bonding composite resins to
dentine. Br Dent J 1985; 158: 410-4.
23
Atatürk Üniv.Djş Hek.Fak.Derg.
CilLS, Sayı:2, Sayfa:17-24J998
GÜNDOĞDU, KIRZIOGLU
27. McLeajı JW. The clinical use of glass ionomer cements. Dent Ctin North Am 1992; 36: 693-711.
28. Mount GJ. The wettability of bonding resins used in the composite resin/glass ionomer "sandwich technique". Aust Dent J 1989; 34; 32-5.
29. Monnt GJ. The tensile strength of the union between various glass ionomer cements and various composite resins. Aust Dent J 1989; 34: 136-46.
30- Mount GJ. Clinical requirements for a successful "sandwich" dentine to glass ionomer cement to composite resin. Aust Dent J 1989; 34: 259-65.
31. Mount GJ. Some physical and biological properties of glass ionomer cement. Int Dent J 1995; 45: 135-40.
32. Prati C, Tao L, Simpson M, Pashley DH. Permeability and rrticroleakage Qf Class II resin composite restorations. J Dent 1994; 22: 49-56,
33. Reich E. Glasionomer-zement und sandwich-fitllungen nach zwei jahren in vivo. Dtsch ZahniiztIZ 1991; 46: 161^.
34. Relief DH. Do adhesives prevent micrDleakflgr? Int Dent J 1994; 44: 19-26.
35. Roberts MW, Folio J, Moffa JP, Guckes AD Clinical evaluation of a composite resin system with a dentin bonding agent for restoration of permanent posterior teeth: A 3 year-study. J Prosthet Dent 1992; 67: 301-6.
36. Ryge G. Clinical criteria. Int Dent J 1980; 30;
347-58.
37. Seymen F,
Gença
y K- Süt azılarına uygulanan kompozit ve amalgam restorasyonların iki yıllık klinik değçîtendirmesi. Pedodonti Klinik/Araştırma 1995; 2: 30-3.
38. Suzuki M, Jordan RE. Glass ioBoraer-composite sandwich technique. JADA 1990; 120: 55-7.
39.
Süne
n F, Sönmez H. Posterior kompozit Rsânteruı klinik özelliklerinin süt diklerinde incelenmesi. A Ü Piî Hek FafcDerg 1992; 19: 75-82.
40. Tonu EM, Ryge G, Chambers DW. A two-year clinical study of a carvable composite resin "used as class II restorations in primary molars. J Dent Child 1980; 47:405-13.
41. Tyas MJ, Toohey A, Clark J. Clinical evaluation of the bond between composite resin and etched {fast ionomer cement Aust Dent J 1989; 34: 1-4.
42. Tyas MJ. Clinical evaluation of five adhesive systems: Three-year results. Int Dent J 1996; 46: 10-4.
43- Van de Voorde A, Gerdts GJ, Murchison DF. Clinical uses of glass ionomer cement: A literature review. Quintessence Int 1988; 19:53-61
44. Van Dijkcn JWV. A 6-year evaluation of a direct composite resin inlay/onlay system and glass ionomer cement-composite resin sandwich restorations. Acta Odontol Scand 1994; 52: 368-76.
45. Varpio M. Prosimoclusal composite restorations in primary molars: A six-year falfow-up. J Dent Child 1985; 52: 435-40.
46. Walls AWG. Me Cabe JF, Murray JJ. Factors influencing the bond strength between glass pdyatkenoate (ionomer) cements and dentine. J Oral Rehabil 1988; 15; 537-47.
47. Watson TF, Bartlctt DW- Adhesive systems: Composites, dentine bonding agents and glass ionomers, Br Dent J 1994; 19:227-31.
48. Welbury RJt, Murray JJ. A clinical trial of the glass-ionomer cement-composite resin "sandwich" technique in class II cavities in permanent premolar and molar teeth. Quintessence Int 1990; 21: 507-12.
49. Welbury RR, Walls AWG, Murray JJ, MÜ Cabe JF. The 5-year results of a clinical trial comparing a glass polyalkenoate (ionomer) cement restoration with an amalgam restoration. Br Dent J 1991; 170: 177-81.
50. Wilkie R, Lidums A, Smales R, Class II glass ionomer cermet tunnel, resin sandwich and amalgam restorations over 2 years (Abstracts of special interest) J Clin Pediatr Dent 1996; 20: 179.

Thank you for copying data from http://www.arastirmax.com