APLICABILIDADE DO CIMENTO DE CARBÔMERO DE VIDRO NO TRATAMENTO RESTAURADOR ATRAUMÁTICO: AVALIAÇÃO LABORATORIAL E CLÍNICA

Abstract

The aim of this research was to evaluate the laboratory and clinical performance of glass carbomer cement used in atraumatic restorative treatmentby means of two laboratory studies, a systematic review with metaanalysis and a randomized clinical trial. Study 1 evaluated the microhardness of two glass ionomer cements– glass carbomer (GCP Glass Fill, GCP-Dental) and a resin modified glass ionomer cement (Riva Light Cure, SDI) - in combination with four light curing units (Carbo LED lamp, GCP-Dental, Demi LED curing light, Kerr, Poli Wireless, Kavo, Radii Plus, SDI).Study 2 analyzed the fluoride release/recharge and surface roughness of glass carbomer cement (GCP Glass-Dental, GCP-Dental) compared to other encapsulated glass ionomer cements (Riva Self Cure, SDI; Riva Light Cure, SDI; Equia Fil, GC Europe).The systematic review was performed to answer the PICO question: “Is glass carbomer sealants more efficient in preventing/arresting carious lesions in permanent molars of children when compared to other sealant materials?” Study 4 compared the survival rate of ART Class II restorations in primary teeth, performed with glass carbomer cement and a high viscosity glass ionomer cement after 12 months of follow up.The results of study 1 showed that glass carbomer cement (GCP Glass-Dental, GCPDental) had a significantly higher microhardness value when compared to a resin modified glass ionomer cement (Riva Light Cure , SDI), regardless of the light curing unit used.In study 2, glass ionomer cements, including glass carbomer cement, presented fluoride release and recharge ability and showed no surface roughness increase by topical application of fluoride.The data from study 3 showed that new carious lesions seem to be inhibited after the placement of sealants in permanent molars, both by glass carbomer cement and other materials used as sealant, after 6 and 12 months of follow up.The longevity of glass carbomer ART class II restorations, article 4, was inferior to that of high viscosity glass ionomer restorations after 12 months follow up in primay teeth.From these results, it was concluded that the laboratory performanceof glass carbomer cement was superior to resin-modified glass ionomer cement in relation to microhardness and in relation to fluoride release and recharge and surface roughness was similar to glass ionomer cements, presented a lower clinical performance in class II ART restorations when compared to these same materials and new carious lesions seem to be inhibited when glass carbomer cement is used as pit and fissure sealant.