Advertisement

Clinical Oral Investigations

, Volume 15, Issue 1, pp 31–38 | Cite as

Two-year clinical performance of glass ionomer and resin composite restorations in xerostomic head- and neck-irradiated cancer patients

  • Roeland J. G. De Moor
  • Inge G. Stassen
  • Yoke van ’t Veldt
  • Dries Torbeyns
  • Geert M. G. Hommez
Original Article

Abstract

The aim of this study was to evaluate the clinical performance of adhesive filling materials in class V cavities in xerostomic head- and neck-irradiated cancer patients, in terms of marginal adaptation, anatomical form and recurrent caries. We selected 35 high-caries-risk, post-radiation, xerostomic adults with ≥3 cervical carious lesions in the same arch. Every patient received a KetacFil (KF), PhotacFil (PF) and Herculite XRV (HX) restoration. Patients were instructed to use a neutral 1% sodium fluoride gel in custom trays, on a daily basis. After 6, 12, 18 and 24 months, the restorations were examined for material loss, marginal integrity and recurrent caries. Fluoride compliance was determined at each recall appointment and recorded as the percentage of recommended use during that interval [compliance of ≤50% = NFUs, >50% = FUs]. Only 30 patients were available for recall at 6 months, with 28 patients at 12 and 18 months, and 27 patients at 24 months. In the NFU group, differences in recurrent caries were found between KF and HX at all observation times (p < 0.05). Differences (p < 0.05) in adaptation and/or anatomical form were found between KF and PF in NFUs after 18 and 24 months. In FUs, significant differences were observed between KF and PF, and KF and HX after 6 and 12 months, between KF and HX, PF and HX after 18 and 24 months. In summary, glass ionomers (especially the conventionally setting formulation) provide clinical caries inhibition but erode easily, while composite resin provides greater structural integrity.

Keywords

Cervical restorations Clinical study Glass ionomer cement Radiation caries Resin composite 

Notes

Conflict of Interest

None

References

  1. 1.
    Frank RM, Herdly J, Philippe E (1965) Acquired dental defects and salivary gland lesions after irradiation for carcinoma. J Am Dent Assoc 70:868–683PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Brown LR, Dreizen S, Handler S, Johnston DA (1975) Effect of radiation-induced xerostomia on human oral microflora. J Dent Res 54:740–750CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Jongebloed WLS, Gravenmade EJ, Retief DH (1988) Radiation caries. A review and SEM study. Am J Dent 1:139–146PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Pyykönen JG, Malmström M, Oikarinen VJ, Salmo M, Vehkalahti M (1986) Late effects of radiation treatment of tongue and floor-of-mouth-cancer on the dentition, saliva secretion, mucous membranes and lower jaw. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 15:401–409CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Dreizen S, Brown LR, Thomas TE et al (1977) Prevention of xerostomia-related dental caries in irradiated cancer patients. J Dent Res 56:99–104CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Wood RE, Maxymiw WG, McComb D (1993) A clinical comparison of glass ionomer (polyalkenoate) and silver amalgam restorations in the treatment of class 5 caries in xerostomic head and neck cancer patients. Oper Dent 18:94–102PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Sennhenn-Kirchner S, Freund F, Grundmann S, Martin A, Borg-von Zpelin M, Christiansen H, Wolff HA, Jocobs H-G (2009) Dental therapy before and after radiotherapy—an evaluation on patients with head and neck malignancies. Clin Oral Investig 13:157–164CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kielbassa AM, Hinkelbein W, Hellwig E, Meyer-Lückel H (2006) Radiation-related damage to dentition. Lancet Oncol 7:326–335CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Odlum O (1991) Preventive resins in the management of radiation-induced xerostomia complications. J Esthet Dent 3:227–229CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Mjör IA (1997) The reasons for replacement and the age of failed restorations in general dental practice. Acta Odontol Scand 55:58–63CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    McComb D, Erickson RL, Maxymiw WG, Wood RE (2002) A clinical comparison of glass ionomer, resin-modified glass ionomer and resin composite restorations in the treatment of cervical caries in xerostomic head and neck radiation patients. Oper Dent 27:430–437PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Haveman CW, Summitt J, Burgess JO, Carlson K (2003) Three restorative materials and topical fluoride gel used in xerostomic patients. J Am Dent Assoc 134:177–184PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hu JY, Smales RJ, Yip KHK (2002) Restoration of teeth with more viscous glass ionomer cements following radiation induced caries. Int Dent J 52:445–448PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hu JY, Chen XC, Li YQ, Smales RJ, Yip KH (2005) Radiation-induced root surface caries restored with glass-ionomer cement placed in conventional and ART cavity preparations: results of two years. Aust Dent J 50:186–190CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    FDI policy statement (2006) Root surface caries in adults. Adopted by the FDI General Assembly: 24 September 2006. http://www.fdiworldental.org/federation/assets/statements/ENGLISH/Caries/Root_surface_caries_in_adults.pdf. Accessed on 15 Mar 2009
  16. 16.
    Denham JW, Peters LJ, Johansen J et al (1999) Do acute mucosal reactions lead to consequential late reactions in patients with head and neck cancer? Radiother Oncol 52:157–164CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Spoak CJ, Johnson G, Ekstrand J (1994) Caries incidence, salivary flow rate and efficacy of fluoride gel treatment in irradiated patients. Caries Res 28:388–393CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Epstein JB, van der Meji EH, Emerton SM et al (1995) Compliance with fluoride gel use in irradiated patients. Spec Care Dent 15:218–222CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Brennan MT, Woo S-B, Lockhart PB (2008) Dental treatment planning and management in the patient who has cancer. Dent Clin North Am 52:19–37CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Daly TE, Drane JB (1976) Prevention and management of dental problems in irradiated patients. J Am Soc Prev Dent 6:21–25Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Horiot JC, Schraub S, Bone MC et al (1983) Dental preservation in patients irradiated for head and neck tumours: a 10-year experience with topical fluoride and a randomized clinical trial between two fluoridation methods. Radiother Oncol 1:77–82CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Jansma J, Vissink A, Gravenmade EJ et al (1989) In vivo study on the prevention of postradiation caries. Caries Res 23:172–178CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Jansma J, Vissink A, Jongebloed L, Gravenmade EJ (1992) Xerostomie-gerelateerde cariës. Ned Tijdschr Tandheelkd 99:225–232PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Peumans M, Kanumilli P, de Munck J, Van landuyt K, Lambrechts P, Van Meerbeek B (2005) Clinical effectiveness of contemporary adhesives: a systematic review of current clinical trials. Dent Mater 221:864–881CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Magni E, Ferrari M, Hickel R, Ilie N (2009) Evaluation of the mechanical properties of dental adhesives and glass-ionomer cements. Clin Oral Invest (in press)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    De Munck J, Van landuyt K, Peumans M, Poitevin A, Lambrechts P, Braem M, Van Meerbeek (2005) A critical review of the durability of adhesion to tooth tissue: methods and results. J Dent Res 24:118–132Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    De Gee AJ, van Duinen RN, Werner A, Davidson CL (1996) Early and long-term wear of conventional and resin-modified glass ionomers. J Dent Res 75:1613–1619CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Peutzfeldt A, Garcia-Godoy F, Asmussen E (1997) Surface hardness and wear of glass ionomers and compomers. Am J Dent 10:15–17PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Guggenberger R, May R, Stefan KP (1998) New trends in glass-ionomer chemistry. Biomater 19:479–483CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    De Moor RJG, Verbeeck RMH (1998) The surface hardness of conventional restorative glass ionomer cements. Biomater 19:2269–2275CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Ilie N, Hickel R (2007) Mechanical behaviour of glass ionomer cements as a function of loading and mixing procedure. Dent Mater J 26:526–533CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Dionysopoulos P, Gerasimou P, Tolidis K (2003) The effect of home-use fluoride gels on glass-ionomer, compomer and composite resin restorations. J Oral Rehabil 30:683–689CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    El-Badrawy WA, McComb D (1993) Effect of home-use fluoride gels on resin-modified glass-ionomer cements. Oper Dent 23:2–9Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Burke FM, Ray NJ, McConnell RJ (2006) Fluoride-containing restorative materials. Int Dent J 56:33–43PubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Saito S, Tosaki S, Hirota K (1999) Chapter 1. Characteristics of glass-ionomer cement. In: Davidson CL, Mjör IA (eds) Advances in glass-ionomer cements. Quintessenz, Berlin, pp 15–50Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Yip HK, Lam WTC, Smales RJ (1999) Fluoride release, weight loss and erosive wear of modern aesthetic restoratives. Br Dent J 87:265–270CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Yip HK, Peng D, Smales RJ (2001) Effects of APF gel on the physical structure of compomers and glass ionomer cements. Oper Dent 26:231–238PubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Hicks J, Garcia Godoy F, Donly K, Flaitz C (2002) Fluoride-releasing restorative materials and secondary caries. Dent Clin North Am 46:247–276CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Wiegand A, Buchalla W, Attin T (2007) Review on fluoride-releasing restorative materials—fluoride release and uptake characteristics, antibacterial activity and influence on caries formation. Dent Mater 23:343–362CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Sennou HE, Lebugle AA, Grégoire GL (1999) X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy study of the dentin-glass ionomer cement interface. Dent Mater 15:229–237CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Gao W, Smales RJ, Gale MS (2000) Fluoride release/uptake from newer glass ionomer cements used with the ART approach. Am J Dent 13:201–204PubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Massara MLA, Alves JB, Brandao PRG (2002) Atraumatic restorative treatment: clinical, ultrastructural and chemical analysis. Caries Res 36:430–436CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Verbeeck RMH, De Maeyer EA, Marks LA, De Moor RJG, De Witte AM, Trimpeneers LM (1998) Fluoride release process of (resin-modified) glass-ionomer cements versus (polyacid-modified) composites. Biomater 19:509–519CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Vermeersch G, Leloup G, Vreven J (2001) Fluoride release from glass-ionomer cements, compomers and resin composites. J Oral Rehabil 28:26–32CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    De Moor RJG, Verbeeck RMH (1998) Effect of acetic acid on the fluoride release of restorative glass ionomer cements. Dent Mater 14:261–268CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    De Moor RJG, Martens LC, Verbeeck RMH (2005) Effect of neutral citrate solution on the fluoride release of conventional restorative glass ionomer cements. Dent Mater 21:318–323CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Roeland J. G. De Moor
    • 1
  • Inge G. Stassen
    • 1
  • Yoke van ’t Veldt
    • 1
  • Dries Torbeyns
    • 1
  • Geert M. G. Hommez
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Operative Dentistry and Endodontology, Dental School, Ghent University HospitalGhent UniversityGhentBelgium

Personalised recommendations