The Journal of the American Dental Association
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


J Am Dent Assoc, Vol 98, No 6, 936-939.
© 1979 American Dental Association

This Article
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Charbeneau, G.
Right arrow Articles by Bozell, R.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Charbeneau, G.
Right arrow Articles by Bozell, R., 3rd
Journal of the American Dental Association, Vol 98, Issue 6, 936-939
Copyright © 1979 by American Dental Association


Journal Article

Clinical evaluation of a glass ionomer cement for restoration of cervical erosion



GT Charbeneau and RR Bozell 3rd

The following conclusions can be made: A glass ionomer cement mixed in preweighed capsules to restore anatomically deficient cervical contours demonstrated bonding of the total restoration to tooth tissue without undercutting or pinning the tooth or relying on geometric design of a cavity preparation in approximately 95% of 113 restorations observed postoperatively for six months. Seven restorations showed partial loss of material. Seven of the 113 restorations, showed some marginal discoloration although no stain penetrated the interface of the tooth and restoration. For most cervical restorations, the glass ionomer cement produced a mismatch in "color, shade, and/or translucency" in relationship to the tooth. The probable reason for this is the opacity of the cement. An acceptable surface of the glass ionomer cement restorations can be established at a later finishing appointment. There is little evidence that roughness increased slightly during the six months. Patients' sensitivity to temperature and direct tactile contact diminished or was eliminated after placement of the restoration.





HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright©1995-1979 American Dental Association (ADA).
Reproduction or republication strictly prohibited without prior written permission of ADA.