Effectiveness of a resin-modified glass ionomer liner in reducing hypersensitivity in posterior restorations: A study from the practitioners engaged in applied research and learning network

Brad Strober, Analia Veitz-Keenan, Julie Ann Barna, Abigail G. Matthews, Donald Vena, Ronald Craig, Frederick A. Curro, Van P. Thompson

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Background. The objectives of this randomized comparative effectiveness study conducted by members of the Practitioners Engaged in Applied Research and Learning (PEARL) Network were to determine whether using a resin-modified glass ionomer (RMGI) liner reduces postoperative hypersensitivity (POH) in dentin-bonded Class I and Class II resinbased composite (RBC) restorations, as well as to identify other factors (putative risk factors) associated with increased POH. Methods. PEARL Network practitioner-investigators (P-Is) (n = 28) were trained to assess sensitivity determination, enamel and dentin caries activity rankings, evaluation for sleep bruxism, and materials and techniques used. The P-Is enrolled 341 participants who had hypersensitive posterior lesions. Participants were randomly assigned to receive an RBC restoration with or without an RMGI liner before P-Is applied a one-step, self-etching bonding agent. P-Is conducted sensitivity evaluations at baseline, at one and four weeks after treatment, and at all visits according to patientreported outcomes. Results. P-Is collected complete data regarding 347 restorations (339 participants) at baseline, with 341 (98 percent) (333 participants) recalled at four weeks. Treatment groups were balanced across baseline characteristics and measures. RBC restorations with or without an RMGI liner had the same one-week and fourweek POH outcomes, as measured clinically (by means of cold or air stimulation) and according to patient-reported outcomes. Conclusions. Use of an RMGI liner did not reduce clinically measured or patient-reported POH in moderate-depth Class I and Class II restorations. Cold and air clinical stimulation findings were similar between groups. Practical Implications. The time, effort and expense involved in placing an RMGI liner in these moderate-depth RBC restorations may be unnecessary, as the representative liner used did not improve hypersensitivity outcomes.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)886-897
Number of pages12
JournalJournal of the American Dental Association
Volume144
Issue number8
StatePublished - Aug 2013

Fingerprint

Hypersensitivity
Research Personnel
Learning
Research
Sleep Bruxism
Dentin Sensitivity
Air
Dentin
Dental Enamel
glass ionomer
Therapeutics

Keywords

  • Posterior restorations
  • Postoperative hypersensitivity
  • Resin-based composite
  • Resinmodified glass ionomer liner
  • Restorative dentistry
  • Sensitivity

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Dentistry(all)

Cite this

Effectiveness of a resin-modified glass ionomer liner in reducing hypersensitivity in posterior restorations : A study from the practitioners engaged in applied research and learning network. / Strober, Brad; Veitz-Keenan, Analia; Barna, Julie Ann; Matthews, Abigail G.; Vena, Donald; Craig, Ronald; Curro, Frederick A.; Thompson, Van P.

In: Journal of the American Dental Association, Vol. 144, No. 8, 08.2013, p. 886-897.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Strober, Brad ; Veitz-Keenan, Analia ; Barna, Julie Ann ; Matthews, Abigail G. ; Vena, Donald ; Craig, Ronald ; Curro, Frederick A. ; Thompson, Van P. / Effectiveness of a resin-modified glass ionomer liner in reducing hypersensitivity in posterior restorations : A study from the practitioners engaged in applied research and learning network. In: Journal of the American Dental Association. 2013 ; Vol. 144, No. 8. pp. 886-897.
@article{d38f57aa6ddb45d9928a8ca68930e798,
title = "Effectiveness of a resin-modified glass ionomer liner in reducing hypersensitivity in posterior restorations: A study from the practitioners engaged in applied research and learning network",
abstract = "Background. The objectives of this randomized comparative effectiveness study conducted by members of the Practitioners Engaged in Applied Research and Learning (PEARL) Network were to determine whether using a resin-modified glass ionomer (RMGI) liner reduces postoperative hypersensitivity (POH) in dentin-bonded Class I and Class II resinbased composite (RBC) restorations, as well as to identify other factors (putative risk factors) associated with increased POH. Methods. PEARL Network practitioner-investigators (P-Is) (n = 28) were trained to assess sensitivity determination, enamel and dentin caries activity rankings, evaluation for sleep bruxism, and materials and techniques used. The P-Is enrolled 341 participants who had hypersensitive posterior lesions. Participants were randomly assigned to receive an RBC restoration with or without an RMGI liner before P-Is applied a one-step, self-etching bonding agent. P-Is conducted sensitivity evaluations at baseline, at one and four weeks after treatment, and at all visits according to patientreported outcomes. Results. P-Is collected complete data regarding 347 restorations (339 participants) at baseline, with 341 (98 percent) (333 participants) recalled at four weeks. Treatment groups were balanced across baseline characteristics and measures. RBC restorations with or without an RMGI liner had the same one-week and fourweek POH outcomes, as measured clinically (by means of cold or air stimulation) and according to patient-reported outcomes. Conclusions. Use of an RMGI liner did not reduce clinically measured or patient-reported POH in moderate-depth Class I and Class II restorations. Cold and air clinical stimulation findings were similar between groups. Practical Implications. The time, effort and expense involved in placing an RMGI liner in these moderate-depth RBC restorations may be unnecessary, as the representative liner used did not improve hypersensitivity outcomes.",
keywords = "Posterior restorations, Postoperative hypersensitivity, Resin-based composite, Resinmodified glass ionomer liner, Restorative dentistry, Sensitivity",
author = "Brad Strober and Analia Veitz-Keenan and Barna, {Julie Ann} and Matthews, {Abigail G.} and Donald Vena and Ronald Craig and Curro, {Frederick A.} and Thompson, {Van P.}",
year = "2013",
month = "8",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "144",
pages = "886--897",
journal = "Journal of the American Dental Association",
issn = "0002-8177",
publisher = "American Dental Association",
number = "8",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Effectiveness of a resin-modified glass ionomer liner in reducing hypersensitivity in posterior restorations

T2 - A study from the practitioners engaged in applied research and learning network

AU - Strober, Brad

AU - Veitz-Keenan, Analia

AU - Barna, Julie Ann

AU - Matthews, Abigail G.

AU - Vena, Donald

AU - Craig, Ronald

AU - Curro, Frederick A.

AU - Thompson, Van P.

PY - 2013/8

Y1 - 2013/8

N2 - Background. The objectives of this randomized comparative effectiveness study conducted by members of the Practitioners Engaged in Applied Research and Learning (PEARL) Network were to determine whether using a resin-modified glass ionomer (RMGI) liner reduces postoperative hypersensitivity (POH) in dentin-bonded Class I and Class II resinbased composite (RBC) restorations, as well as to identify other factors (putative risk factors) associated with increased POH. Methods. PEARL Network practitioner-investigators (P-Is) (n = 28) were trained to assess sensitivity determination, enamel and dentin caries activity rankings, evaluation for sleep bruxism, and materials and techniques used. The P-Is enrolled 341 participants who had hypersensitive posterior lesions. Participants were randomly assigned to receive an RBC restoration with or without an RMGI liner before P-Is applied a one-step, self-etching bonding agent. P-Is conducted sensitivity evaluations at baseline, at one and four weeks after treatment, and at all visits according to patientreported outcomes. Results. P-Is collected complete data regarding 347 restorations (339 participants) at baseline, with 341 (98 percent) (333 participants) recalled at four weeks. Treatment groups were balanced across baseline characteristics and measures. RBC restorations with or without an RMGI liner had the same one-week and fourweek POH outcomes, as measured clinically (by means of cold or air stimulation) and according to patient-reported outcomes. Conclusions. Use of an RMGI liner did not reduce clinically measured or patient-reported POH in moderate-depth Class I and Class II restorations. Cold and air clinical stimulation findings were similar between groups. Practical Implications. The time, effort and expense involved in placing an RMGI liner in these moderate-depth RBC restorations may be unnecessary, as the representative liner used did not improve hypersensitivity outcomes.

AB - Background. The objectives of this randomized comparative effectiveness study conducted by members of the Practitioners Engaged in Applied Research and Learning (PEARL) Network were to determine whether using a resin-modified glass ionomer (RMGI) liner reduces postoperative hypersensitivity (POH) in dentin-bonded Class I and Class II resinbased composite (RBC) restorations, as well as to identify other factors (putative risk factors) associated with increased POH. Methods. PEARL Network practitioner-investigators (P-Is) (n = 28) were trained to assess sensitivity determination, enamel and dentin caries activity rankings, evaluation for sleep bruxism, and materials and techniques used. The P-Is enrolled 341 participants who had hypersensitive posterior lesions. Participants were randomly assigned to receive an RBC restoration with or without an RMGI liner before P-Is applied a one-step, self-etching bonding agent. P-Is conducted sensitivity evaluations at baseline, at one and four weeks after treatment, and at all visits according to patientreported outcomes. Results. P-Is collected complete data regarding 347 restorations (339 participants) at baseline, with 341 (98 percent) (333 participants) recalled at four weeks. Treatment groups were balanced across baseline characteristics and measures. RBC restorations with or without an RMGI liner had the same one-week and fourweek POH outcomes, as measured clinically (by means of cold or air stimulation) and according to patient-reported outcomes. Conclusions. Use of an RMGI liner did not reduce clinically measured or patient-reported POH in moderate-depth Class I and Class II restorations. Cold and air clinical stimulation findings were similar between groups. Practical Implications. The time, effort and expense involved in placing an RMGI liner in these moderate-depth RBC restorations may be unnecessary, as the representative liner used did not improve hypersensitivity outcomes.

KW - Posterior restorations

KW - Postoperative hypersensitivity

KW - Resin-based composite

KW - Resinmodified glass ionomer liner

KW - Restorative dentistry

KW - Sensitivity

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84883369407&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84883369407&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Article

C2 - 23904575

AN - SCOPUS:84883369407

VL - 144

SP - 886

EP - 897

JO - Journal of the American Dental Association

JF - Journal of the American Dental Association

SN - 0002-8177

IS - 8

ER -