RESUMEN
Background: To evaluate the radiant power of the light cure units (LCUs) in relation to their type, radiant exitance, number of years in clinical use, and condition of LCUs tips in governmental and public clinics in Dental Faculties in Sana'a City. Materials and Methods: LCUs were collected from different colleges at Sanaa City, Yemen, then LCU data as type, clinical age (<1 year, between 1-5 and Ë 5-years), tip condition was visually inspected for damage and adhering debris, and the radiant exitance values of the tested LCUs. Radiant exitance values were subcategorized into three groups: <400, 400-850, and >850 mW/cm², labeled as inadequate, marginal, and adequate radiant exitances, respectively. A Woodpecker radiometer was used with a mode lasting of 20 seconds was used with each LCU. Descriptive statistics of the different parameters were evaluated with SPSS version 25. One-way ANOVA and Mann-Whitney tests were performed to determine the mean difference between the groups with a significance value of Ë 0.05 was considered. Results: Two hundred twenty-three LCUs were surveyed, and the majority were Light-emitting diode (LED). Forty-nine (21.9%), 117 (52.4%), 57 (25.6%) recorded lesser than, 400-850, and more than 850 mW/cm², respectively. Radiant exitances of < year-old units were found to be higher than those of units used for Ë 5 years with significant differences (p=0.001). The ANOVA test showed significant differences between the radiant exitance with clinical age and LCU tip conditions and a strong correlation p Ë 0.050. Conclusion: LED curing lights were the most used in the tested Dental Faculties. More than half of the used LCU offered sufficient radiant exitance. Clinical age, the presence or absence of composite buildups, and damage to curing tips showed significantly affect radiant exitance values.
RESUMEN
Glass ionomer cement (GIC) is a self-adhesive dental restorative material composed of a polyacrylic acid liquid and fluoro-aluminosilicate glass powder. It is commonly used for cementation during dental restoration. This study aimed to systematically review the existing literature regarding the clinical performance of GIC in load-bearing dental restorations. A comprehensive literature search was conducted in EBSCO, PubMed, Embrace, and Cochrane databases. Only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were included in the search, and a broad search technique was used, where inclusion and exclusion criteria were applied. After a thorough evaluation, 12 RCTs were extensively reviewed, and whether GIC is suitable for load-bearing restorations was determined. Significant variations in staining surface or margin, color match, translucency, esthetic anatomical form, retention, material fracture, marginal adaptation, surface luster, occlusal contour, wear, and approximal anatomical form indicated the unsuitability of GIC. By contrast, significance differences in patient view and periodontal response indicated that GIC is suitable. No significant differences in postoperative sensitivity, recurrence of caries, or tooth integrity were observed. Nevertheless, the results of the review demonstrated that the clinical performance of GIC is comparable to that of traditional restorative materials with regard to the parameters analyzed. GIC is a suitable restorative material for load-bearing restorations regarding surface margin, esthetic anatomical form, material retention and fracture, marginal adaptation, occlusal contour, wear, and approximal anatomical form. It reduces other parameters, such as postoperative sensitivity, recurrence of caries, and tooth integrity.