Objective The aim of this study was to evaluate and compare the marginal adaptation and microleakage of class V cavities restored with conventional glass ionomer cement (GIC), resin-modified glass ionomer (RMGI), and bioactive ionic resin (BIR) restorative materials after 6 months of water storage.
Materials and Methods One hundred twenty standardized class V cavities (2 mm deep, 4 mm in width, and 3 mm in height) were prepared in sound extracted human molar teeth, where the coronal margins were in enamel while the cervical margins were in dentin. Three glass ionomer-based restorations were tested (n = 40): GIC (Equia Fil), RMGI (Fuji II LC), and BIR (ACTIVA Bioactive Restorative). Half of the teeth from each group (n = 20) were evaluated for their marginal adaptation with scanning electron microscopy and the other half submitted to dye penetration test to examine microleakage. Further division for each subgroup (n = 10) occurred to be tested immediately, while the remaining teeth were examined after keeping for 6 months and thermocycling.
Statistical analysis The outcomes were analyzed by Kruskal–Wallis and Mann–Whitney U tests.
Results No statistically significant differences were observed among the three studied restorative materials. However, the differences were statistically significant in microleakage test between enamel and dentin and after water aging.
Conclusion All tested restorative materials exhibited the same marginal adaptation and microleakage. Dentin substrate revealed greater microleakage than enamel, especially with BIR restorative material. Water aging had a negative effect on RMGI with respect to microleakage.
Objective
Evaluate and compare the 5‐year clinical performance of three high‐viscosity glass ionomer restorative materials in small class II restorations.
Materials and Methods
Forty patients, each with four class II restorations, were enrolled in this trial. A total of 160 restorations were placed, 25% for each material, as follows: three high‐viscosity conventional glass ionomer restorative systems (Ketac Universal Aplicap, EQUIA Forte and Riva Self Cure HV) and a microhybrid resin composite system (Filtek Z250). Clinical evaluation was performed at baseline and after 1, 3, and 5 years by two independent examiners using FDI criteria. Epoxy resin replicas were observed under scanning electron microscope (SEM) to examine surface characteristics. Data were analyzed with Kruskal‐Wallis, Mann–Whitney U, Friedman, and Wilcoxon signed‐rank tests (p < 0.05).
Results
The success rates were 100% for resin composite, 97.4% for Ketac Universal, and 94.9% for both EQUIA Forte and Riva HV restorations. Statistically significant differences were observed between all groups in terms of surface luster and color match criteria (p < 0.05). Statistically significant changes were found over time for all criteria except for fracture of material, postoperative hypersensitivity, recurrence of caries, tooth integrity, periodontal response, adjacent mucosa, and oral health criteria (p > 0.05). SEM evaluations were in accordance with the clinical findings.
Conclusions
Although drawbacks in surface luster and color match appeared over the 5‐year evaluation period, the three high‐viscosity glass ionomer restorative materials provided successful clinical performance in small to medium sized class II cavities compared to microhybrid resin composite.
Clinical Significance
Glass ionomer restorations exhibited clinical performance similar to that of microhybrid resin composite restorations in small class II cavities subsequent to 5‐year evaluation.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.