Biomedical subjects

John R Gallo

Publications and source records attributed to John R Gallo.

6 recordsLinked to original sources

PubMed2006

Clinical evaluation of 2 flowable composites.

OBJECTIVE: This study evaluated the clinical efficacy of 2 flowable resin composites used to restore occlusal carious lesions. Tetric Flow (Vivadent) and Esthet-X Flow (Dentsply/Caulk) are resin composites with decreased filler loading and lower viscosity compared to conventional resin composites. METHOD AND MATERIALS: Sixty occlusal restorations (30 of each material) were placed. After tooth preparation and caries removal, each material was inserted with rubber dam isolation. Prime & Bond NT (Dentsply/Caulk) was used to bond both flowable composites, which were incrementally placed and light-cured for 20 seconds. Each restoration was evaluated at baseline (1 week after restoration placement), 3 months, 6 months, and 1 year for marginal discoloration, secondary caries, anatomic form, retention, polishability, marginal adaptation, and color match. Groups were compared at 1 year and the data analyzed statistically with a .05 level of significance. RESULTS: A marginally significant difference in color match was observed at 1 year (favoring Esthet-X Flow). No other differences were observed between materials. Marginal discoloration significantly worsened for all restorations at 6 months and 1 year, and marginal adaptation significantly worsened at 1 year for all restorations. A positive association between preparation size and sensitivity was detected at 3 months; no association was found at 6 months and 1 year. At 1 year, restoration size was positively associated with marginal adaptation. Despite some changes from baseline, all restorations were clinically acceptable at 1 year. CONCLUSION: Although flowable resin composites are advocated for occlusal restorations, it is recommended that they be limited to small and moderate-sized restorations.

Composite Resins↗

PubMed2004

Clinical evaluation of four Class 5 restorative materials: 3-year recall.

PURPOSE: To place four restorative materials, including two resin-based composites (Pertac III and Synergy), an improved resin-modified glass-ionomer (Fuji II LC Improved), and a compomer (Dyract AP), in Class 5 non-carious cervical lesions and to evaluate and compare those restorations for marginal discoloration, anatomic form, surface texture, secondary caries, retention, and marginal adaptation at baseline and annually for 3 years. METHODS: The tested materials were used to restore moderate-size Class 5 non-carious cervical lesions. All materials were used following the manufacturers' directions for etching, bonding, curing, and finishing. Thirty restorations of each material were placed. After rubber-dam isolation, a bevel was placed on the occlusal margin of all preparations except the Fuji II LC Improved, and all preparations were cleaned with pumice. Each restorative material was placed and cured in increments except Fuji II LC Improved. All restorations were evaluated at baseline, 6 months, 1, 2, and 3-year recalls using a modified USPHS scale. RESULTS: Analysis with Chi Square and Logit Analysis revealed that, at 3 years, Pertac III and Fuji II LC Improved were significantly rougher than all other materials. Pertac III had significantly poorer marginal adaptation than all other materials. All other comparisons were not significant. At 3-year recall, most restorations were satisfactory.

Acid Etching, Dental↗

PubMed2002

Treating root-surface caries.

This article summarizes the effectiveness of restorative materials used to restore root surfaces, the mechanisms by which these materials reduce caries, and placement techniques for restoring root-surface lesions. Patients may be classified into low, medium, and high caries risk groups for root caries, and specific dental restorative material recommendations are made for each category. Effective plaque control, xylitol-containing chewing gums, antimicrobial agents, fluoride-releasing restorative materials, topically applied fluoride, and fluoride-containing toothpastes provide maximum protection for the high caries risk patient.

Age Factors↗

PubMed2002

In vitro evaluation of the retention of composite fiber and stainless steel posts.

PURPOSE: This study compared the tensile retentive strength of composite fiber-reinforced dowels luted with a resin cement to stainless steel dowels luted with zinc phosphate cement. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The crowns of 40 extracted human mandibular premolars were removed with a separating disc 1-mm coronal to the cementoenamel junction. The teeth were randomly divided into 4 groups (n = 10). A post space was prepared in each specimen to a depth of 9 mm, using the drill supplied by the respective manufacturer. For the stainless steel post group, 1.25-mm-diameter posts were cemented with zinc phosphate cement. For the composite fiber reinforced groups, posts with diameters of 1.00, 1.25, and 1.50 mm were luted with a Bisphenol A-Glycidyl Methacrylate (BIS-GMA) resin bonding system (Jeneric/Pentron, Wallingford, CT) according to manufacturer specifications. The specimens were stored in a sealed container with a moist environment for 24 hours, placed in a fixture in an 801 Materials Test Systems (MTS) machine (MTS Systems Corp, Minneapolis, MN), and loaded in tension at a rate of 5.0 mm/min until failure. Differences among the 4 groups were determined using a one-way analysis of variance and Tukey-B post-hoc tests (alpha = 0.05). RESULTS: The mean loads to failure ranged from 43.9 +/- 10.4 kg for the stainless steel dowel group to 19.9 +/- 5.7 kg for the composite fiber-reinforced 1.00-mm-diameter group. The stainless steel post luted with zinc phosphate cement provided significantly greater tensile resistance than all composite fiber dowel groups. The retention of the 1.00-mm composite fiber-reinforced post was significantly less than the remaining groups. CONCLUSIONS: Under the conditions of this study, the stainless steel dowel luted with zinc phosphate cement provided significantly greater retention.

Analysis of Variance↗

PubMedDate not supplied

Three-year clinical evaluation of a compomer and a resin composite as Class V filling materials.

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the placement of two restorative materials, including a compomer (F2000, 3M ESPE) and a resin composite (Silux Plus, 3M ESPE), in non-carious cervical lesions using a self-etching bonding agent (F2000 self-etching primer/adhesive) and a fifth generation bonding agent (Single Bond, 3M ESPE) and to evaluate and compare these restorations for marginal discoloration, secondary caries, anatomical form, retention, surface texture and marginal adaptation at baseline and annually for three years. F2000 and Silux Plus were used to restore the teeth with moderate-sized non-carious cervical lesions. F2000 was placed using two different bonding agents: F2000 self-etching primer/adhesive (F2000SE group) and Single Bond (F2000SB group); Silux Plus was placed as a control using Single Bond (SiluxSB group). Thirty restorations of each material/dentin adhesive combination were placed. All restorations were evaluated at baseline and annually for three years using a modified USPHS scale. At the end of the three-year recall, Silux Plus had significantly better surface texture than F2000 (p < 0.0001). In addition, marginal adaptation significantly worsened over time starting at one year, as compared with baseline, for all groups (p < 0.0001). When anatomic form was compared between F2000 and Silux Plus, the p-value was 0.085, demonstrating that F2000 was slightly better than Silux Plus. Likewise, when comparing marginal adaptation between the F2000SE and SiluxSB groups, the p-value was 0.064, demonstrating that F2000 with the self-etching primer had better margins than Silux Plus with Single Bond. No other differences were found among the groups.

Bisphenol A-Glycidyl Methacrylate↗

PubMedDate not supplied

Two-year clinical evaluation of a posterior resin composite using a fourth- and fifth-generation bonding agent.

This study evaluated the clinical performance of a posterior resin composite used with a fourth- and fifth-generation bonding agent. Sixty-two Class I and II restorations were placed with half the restorations restored with Gluma Solid Bond (a fourth-generation bonding system, or total etch two-step system) and the other half restored with Gluma Comfort Bond and Desensitizer (a fifth-generation bonding system, or total etch one-step system). Solitaire 2 was used as the restorative material for all restorations. The bonding systems and resin composite were used according to the manufacturer's instructions and all procedures were performed with rubber dam isolation. All restorations were evaluated at baseline, six months and one and two years. A modified USPHS scale was used to evaluate the restorations for marginal discoloration, recurrent caries, anatomic form, marginal adaptation and proximal contact. Statistical analysis revealed that at two years no significant differences were found between the two bonding agents. Overall, Solitaire 2 performed well clinically whether Gluma Solid Bond or Gluma Comfort Bond and Desensitizer was used. It was thus concluded that Solitaire 2 functions successfully when used as a posterior restorative material for at least two years.

Composite Resins↗