One-year evaluation of a new restorative glass ionomer cement for the restoration of non-carious cervical lesions in patients with systemic diseases: a randomized, clinical trial

Abstract

One-year evaluation of a new restorative glass ionomer cement for the restoration of non-carious cervical lesions in patients with systemic diseases: a randomized, clinical trial Objective: This randomized and clinical trial aimed to evaluate the performance of a new restorative Glass Ionomer Cement (GIC) for the restoration of non-carious cervical lesions (NCCLs) of patients with systemic diseases compared with a posterior resin composite after 12 months. Methodology: 134 restorations were placed at 30 patients presenting systemic diseases by a single clinician. NCCLs were allocated to two groups according to restorative system used: a conventional restorative GIC [Fuji Bulk (GC, Tokyo Japan) (FB)] and a posterior resin composite [G-aenial Posterior (GC, Tokyo Japan) (GP)] used with a universal adhesive using etch&rinse mode. All restorative procedures were conducted according to manufacturer's instructions. Restorations were scored regarding retention, marginal discoloration, marginal adaptation, secondary caries, surface texture, and post-operative sensitivity using modified United States Public Health Service (USPHS) criteria after 1 week (baseline), 6, and 12 months. Descriptive statistics were performed using chi-square tests. Cochran Q and Mc Nemar's tests were used to detect differences over time. Results: After 12 months, recall rate was 93% and the rates of cumulative retention failure for FB and GP were 4.9% and 1.6% respectively. Both groups presented similar alpha rates for marginal adaptation (FB 86.2%, GP 95.5%) and marginal discoloration (FB 93.8%, GP 97%) at 6-month recall, but FB restorations showed higher bravo scores than GP restorations for marginal adaptation and marginal discoloration after 12 months (p<0.05). Regarding surface texture, 2 FB restorations (3.1%) were scored as bravo after 6 months. All restorations were scored as alpha for secondary caries and postoperative sensitivity after 12 months. Conclusion: Although the posterior resin composite demonstrated clinically higher alpha scores than the conventional GIC for marginal adaptation and discoloration, both materials successfully restored NCCLs at patients with systematic disease after a year. Clinical relevance: Due to its acceptable clinical results, the tested conventional restorative GIC can be used for the restoration of NCCLs of patients with systemic diseases.

Secondary caries and marginal adaptation of ion-releasing versus resin composite restorations: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials

“…The characteristics and methodological assessment of the 22 included studies are summarized in Table 1 . In 15 of the included studies 16 , 19 , 37 , 38 , 41 – 44 , 46 – 48 , 50 – 53 , split-mouth design was employed while 7 studies reported a parallel study design 17 , 39 , 40 , 45 , 49 , 54 , 55 . Most of the studies employed the modified USPHS criteria for restorations evaluation except for 4 studies 16 , 17 , 50 , 51 that used FDI criteria.…”

“…Class V carious lesions were evaluated in 4 studies 37 , 40 , 43 , 54 . For HV-GIC, glass hybrid, and conventional GIC, Cavity conditioner of poly-acrylic acid was used in all studies except 2 which did not report any type of pre-treatment 38 , 53 . For RMGIC, 2 studies used 37% phosphoric acid etching for 5 s 37 , 41 .…”

“…Equia Forte/179 2. Tetric Evoceram/178 358/184 2 Years Multicenter: Croatia, Italy, Turkey, and Serbia/University Split-mouth 90.6% Visual-tactile with (magnification 2.5X), mirrors, and very thin (250-μm-thick) dental probes Oz et al 53 Conventional GIC: Fuji Bulk a 1.MFR Hybrid Composite/Gaenial Posterior a Modifies USPHS 1. Fuji Bulk/67 2.…”

“…For resin composite,8 studies used ER adhesive system 16 , 37 , 42 – 45 , 47 , 52 , 57 while 9 studies used SE adhesives 17 , 19 , 40 , 41 , 46 , 48 , 50 , 51 , 54 . Two studies used a universal adhesive in selective etch mode 38 , 49 , 1 in SE mode 39 , and 1 in ER mode 53 . For moisture control, cotton rolls and saliva ejectors were reported in the majority of studies except for 3 studies that used rubber dam isolation 44 , 51 , 52 .…”

“…Patients in all studies had no systemic diseases except two 43 , 53 . In one study 53 , patients were required to have at least one systemic disease and the other one 43 included subjects who were xerostomic, head and neck, cancer patients who received radiation therapy.…”