1Professor, Department of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, P.M.N.M Dental College and Hospital, Bagalkot, Karnataka.
2Professor, Department of Orthodontics, P.M.N.M Dental College and Hospital, Bagalkot, Karnataka.
Online published on 22 June, 2012.
The aim of the study was to clinically evaluate the best material for restoring non carious cervical lesions, in terms of retention and sensitivity, among Glass Ionomer Cement (GC Fuji II), composite(Filtek Z350 Universal Hybrid) and compomer (Dyract-AP): In patients with normal occlusion and with traumatic occlusion.
Patients with non-carious cervical lesions were selected on a random basis. No restrictions were placed on the size or position of the lesion. A total of 66 restorations were placed in 20 patients. Teethwere divided into twogroups: Group1:teethin normalocclusion. (no of restorations = 33), Group 2: teeth in traumatic occlusion. (no of restorations = 33). Teeth in the respective groups were restored with Glass Ionomer Cement (n = 11), Composite (n = 11) and Compomer (n = 11). The patients were recalled at intervals of 2,4 and 6 months for assessment of restorations in terms of retention and tooth sensitivity for both the groups.
In terms of retention and sensitivity, when comparison was made between normal and trauma group, there was statistical significance only for glass ionomer cement.
Cervical Defects, Glass Ionomer, Compomers, Flexural Stress, Hypersensitivity
