title: Clinical evaluation of three restorative materials applied in a minimal intervention caries treatment approach.
abstract: OBJECTIVE
  This paper reports on a longitudinal evaluation of three materials (glass ionomer, zinc oxide-eugenol cement, and composite) employed in a minimal restorative intervention approach of 81 high caries-active pregnant women selected for a preventive oral health program in Brazil. The aim of the study was to evaluate the clinical behavior of the glass ionomer cement, currently indicated in programs for control of carious lesions.
  
  
  METHODS
  The patients were randomly divided into two groups. Both groups were engaged in an oral health promotion approach. In Group 1, 417 glass ionomer restorations were placed in 43 individuals, involving all types and sizes of cavities. In the second group, 213 posterior zinc oxide-eugenol (ZOE) restorations and 127 anterior composite restorations were placed in 38 patients. Minimal cavity preparations were made, in which only soft or infected dentin was removed, on the basis of clinical judgment.
  
  
  RESULTS
  After two years, the restorations were clinically evaluated by two examiners for marginal integrity, amount of wear, presence of fracture, carious lesions, and lost restorations. Statistical analysis (chi-square test) identified statistically significant difference between glass ionomer and ZOE (90.6% vs 9.2%). Comparing glass ionomer and composite, similar survival rates were observed. The success rate observed for the glass ionomer cement ranged from 77.1 percent to 92.5 percent, depending on the type and size of cavity in which it was applied. Four teeth restored with glass ionomer cement and one tooth restored with composite showed caries signs. Regarding the ZOE restorations, caries was always associated with other causes of failure such as excessive wear, restoration loss, or marginal defects, with no possibility of separate evaluation. Despite the preventive and therapeutic measurements employed, a mean increase of 2.15 new surfaces with cavities was observed in Group 1, as well as 2.83 surfaces presenting the same status in Group 2.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  This study demonstrated that highly viscous glass ionomer cement applied in a minimal intervention approach provided high-quality preventive and restorative care after two years to a population at high risk for caries. The composite was employed in cavities exposed to lower stress, such as in the anterior teeth, and its behavior was comparable to that of the glass ionomer cement. The reinforced ZOE presented a high failure rate, thus contraindicating its use for such purpose.
authors.affiliation: Department of Operative Dentistry, Bauru Dental School, University of São Paulo.
authors.forename: Regia L
authors.initials: RL
authors.lastname: Zanata
authors.forename: Maria F L
authors.initials: MF
authors.lastname: Navarro
authors.forename: Silvia H
authors.initials: SH
authors.lastname: Barbosa
authors.forename: Jose R P
authors.initials: JR
authors.lastname: Lauris
authors.forename: Eduardo B
authors.initials: EB
authors.lastname: Franco
mesh_terms: D000328:Adult; D001938:Brazil; D003188:Composite Resins; D004245:DMF Index; D003731:Dental Caries / Q000628:therapy*; D003737:Dental Cavity Preparation / Q000379:methods*; D003793:Dental Restoration, Permanent / Q000379:methods*; D005260:Female; D005899:Glass Ionomer Cements; D006801:Humans; D008137:Longitudinal Studies; D008768:Methylmethacrylates; D011247:Pregnancy; D019279:Resin Cements; D015035:Zinc Oxide-Eugenol Cement
chemical_list: D003188:Composite Resins; C481898:Fill Magic; D005899:Glass Ionomer Cements; D008768:Methylmethacrylates; D019279:Resin Cements; D015035:Zinc Oxide-Eugenol Cement; C110713:fuji IX; C031667:IRM cement