Journal of Conservative Dentistry
Home About us Editorial Board Instructions Submission Subscribe Advertise Contact e-Alerts Login 
Users Online: 431
Print this page  Email this page Bookmark this page Small font sizeDefault font sizeIncrease font size
Year : 2017  |  Volume : 20  |  Issue : 3  |  Page : 204-209

One-year comparative evaluation of Ketac Nano with resin-modified glass ionomer cement and Giomer in noncarious cervical lesions: A randomized clinical trial

1 Department of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, St. Joseph Dental College, Eluru, India
2 Department of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, Sibar Institute of Dental Sciences, Guntur, India
3 Department of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, Lenora Institute of Dental Sciences, Rajahmundry, Andhra Pradesh, India

Correspondence Address:
Bollu Indira Priyadarshini
Department of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, St. Joseph Dental College, Duggirala, Eluru, West Godavari - 534 003, Andhra Pradesh
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None

DOI: 10.4103/0972-0707.218305

Rights and Permissions

Aim: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the clinical performance of Ketac Nano (Ketac N100), RMGIC (Fuji Filling LC), and Giomer (Beautifil® II) in noncarious cervical lesions (NCCLs). Materials and Methods: One operator restored 120 NCCLs in 20 subjects, with at least two lesions restored with one of the restorative materials: RMGIC (control group), Giomer and Ketac Nano (experimental groups). Two observers evaluated retention, marginal discoloration, marginal adaptation, color match, surface roughness, and postoperative sensitivity using modified USPHS criteria at baseline, 6, and 12 months. Study Design: Double-blinded randomized clinical trial (RCT). Statistical Analysis: Kruskal–Wallis test, Mann–Whitney U-test, Wilcoxon matched-pairs test. Results: There was statistically significant difference observed between Giomer, Ketac Nano and RMGIC after 12 months (P < 0.05). There was a significant decrease in retention rates for Giomer (P = 0.0050), increased marginal discoloration and color mismatch for Ketac Nano (P = 0.0025, P = 0.0053), increased surface roughness and color mismatch with RMGIC (P = 0.0022, P = 0.0077) from baseline to 12 months. Conclusion: Within the limitations of this RCT of 12 months, Ketac Nano and RMGIC restorations were better retained in NCCLs while superior color match and surface finish were observed with Giomer restorations.

Print this article     Email this article
 Next article
 Previous article
 Table of Contents

 Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
 Citation Manager
 Access Statistics
 Reader Comments
 Email Alert *
 Add to My List *
 * Requires registration (Free)

 Article Access Statistics
    PDF Downloaded176    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal