The aim of this in vivo study was to evaluate the clinical 1 year follow-up of silica and flouroapatite reinforced glass carbomer filling material.~In this study, total of 100 (46 class I, 54 class II) restorations were performed in 36 patients. All cavities were prepared conventionally. Half of the restorations were restored with nano composite resin (Tokuyama Estelite, Tokuyama Dental, Japan) and the other half were restored with glass carbomer material (GCP Dental, The Netherlands). Rubber-dam was used for isolation. Before the replacement of composite restorations, enamel edges were etched according to selective etching method. Then universal adhesive system was applied. Composite resin was applied to the cavity in 2 mm layers by incramental technique. Glass carbomer was placed with bulk technique by applying finger pressure with surface covering. Composite restorations were polymerized with LED light curing unit. Glass carbomer restorations were cured its own special curing unit. Restorations were evaluated with modified USPHS criteria at the end of the first week, 6 months and 12 months. Data were analyzed using Fisher's Exact Chi-Square test, Fisher Freeman Halton Test and Continuity (Yates) Correction. Wilcoxon sign test was used for intra-group comparisons of the parameters. Statistically significance was evaluated at p <0.05.
The aim of this in vivo study was to evaluate the clinical 1 year follow-up of silica and flouroapatite reinforced glass carbomer filling material.