Related Experiment Video
Updated: May 2, 2026

Detection and Removal of Tooth-Colored Composite Resin Using the Fluorescence-Aided Identification Technique
Published on: July 27, 2022
Comparative Evaluation of Two Esthetic Full Coronal Restorative Materials for Primary Incisors
Kanchan Kumari Dhaker1, Sandeep Tandon1, Ambika S Rathore1
1Department of Pediatric and Preventive Dentistry, RUHS College of Dental Science, Rajasthan University of Health Sciences (RUHS), Jaipur, Rajasthan, India.
Aim:
This study was designed to compare the clinical efficacy of two esthetic restorative materials, nanoceramic (Magma NT®) and giomer (Beautifil II®), as full coronal restoration in primary maxillary incisors.
Materials And Methods:
A total of 15 patients aged 3-5 years presenting with mutilated primary maxillary incisors due to caries or trauma were selected for the study using randomized simple sampling. A total of 40 maxillary incisors were randomly divided into two equal groups, with 20 teeth in each group. Teeth in group I (GP I) were restored with nanoceramic (Magma NT®) and group II (GP II) with giomer (Beautifil II®). The full coronal restorations were done using strip crowns (3M ESPE). The restorations were evaluated for gross fracture, marginal integrity, and secondary caries according to modified Ryge's criteria [United States Public Health Service (USPHS)] at baseline (immediate postoperative), 3, 6, and 9 months. Parental satisfaction with each type of restoration was also evaluated using the Likert 5-point scale.
Results:
The data obtained was statistically analyzed using the Chi-squared test, and the level of significance, that is, the p-value, was determined. The Chi-squared test showed no significant changes to all modified USPHS criteria for each material at baseline and 3-month evaluation period. The changes recorded were after a 3-month follow-up between the two materials; nanoceramic (Magma NT®) restoration demonstrated marginally better than giomer (Beautifil II®) in terms of gross fracture and marginal integrity; however, there was no statically significant difference between them (p > 0.05), while giomer (Beautifil II®) was better than nanoceramic in terms of secondary caries (p < 0.05). Parental satisfaction for both entities was comparable in terms of color and durability; however, they were cost-ineffective.
Conclusion:
Nanoceramic restoration demonstrated better results in terms of gross fracture and marginal integrity, while giomer was better in terms of secondary caries.
Clinical Significance:
Nanoceramics and giomers can serve as an alternative to conventional restorative materials in primary anterior teeth because of their improved qualities.
How To Cite This Article:
Dhaker KK, Tandon S, Rathore AS, et al. Comparative Evaluation of Two Esthetic Full Coronal Restorative Materials for Primary Incisors. Int J Clin Pediatr Dent 2024;17(3):321-327.
More Related Videos
05:30Roughness Impact of Piezoelectric Dental Scaler on Two Distinct Flowable Composite Filling Materials
Published on: January 10, 2025
07:42Quasistatic Mechanical Testing for Computer-Aided Design and Manufacturing Occlusal Veneers Cemented to Milled Dentin Analog Material
Published on: December 20, 2024
Related Concept Videos
Tooth Anatomy
The Crown, Neck, and Root
The visible part of the tooth is referred to as the crown. It's covered by enamel, the hardest substance in the human body. The crown is uniquely shaped for each type of tooth, allowing for different functions such as cutting, tearing, or...
Assessment of the Mouth
Mouth Inspection
The inspection begins with visually examining the mouth for symmetry, color, and size.