Five‐year randomized clinical trial to evaluate the clinical performance of high‐viscosity glass ionomer restorative systems in small class II restorations

Abstract

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.

Clinical evaluation of subgingival open sandwich restorations: 3‐year results of a randomized double‐blind trial

“…There were no radiographic indications of secondary caries or significant gaps between the base materials and gingival dentin during the evaluation periods. The use of an acidic pre‐conditioner in GI‐based base materials may enhance the chemical adhesion between GI and dentin, which may contribute to a good marginal seal and a reduced incidence of secondary caries 46,47 . In contrast, the use of an adhesive containing 10‐MDP to bond both flowable bulk fill and ion‐releasing base materials, combined with their high flow rate, may lead to good marginal integrity and a reduced risk of secondary caries 48,49 .…”

“…The use of an acidic pre-conditioner in GIbased base materials may enhance the chemical adhesion between GI and dentin, which may contribute to a good marginal seal and a reduced incidence of secondary caries. 46,47 In contrast, the use of an adhesive containing 10-MDP to bond both flowable bulk fill and ionreleasing base materials, combined with their high flow rate, may lead to good marginal integrity and a reduced risk of secondary caries. 48,49 Previous studies that employed the same adhesive observed no recurrent caries during follow-ups.…”

3-year randomized clinical trial to evaluate the performance of posterior composite restorations lined with ion-releasing materials

“…After assessing all radiographs under optimal light conditions, the depth of proximal carious lesions in all cases was D3. Pulp vitality was confirmed by application of cold dry ice 29 . Dental plaque and salivary pellicle were removed from teeth surface by using pumice-water slurry and rubber cup 14 .…”

Clinical Performance of Glass Ionomer Cement in Load-Bearing Restorations: A Systematic Review

“…Six studies investigated the staining surface [ 46 – 51 ], but only 2 of them found statically significant results regarding staining surface and margin when GIC was compared with RC ( P <0.05) [ 47 , 48 ]. The effect was observed only in minor surface staining, which was easily removed and did not exert a detrimental effect.…”

“…One study observed that Filtek Z250 outperformed other GIC materials in terms of color match ( P <0.001). EQUIA Forte restoration’s color match was superior to that of Ketac Universal or Riva HV restorations at 5-year recall [ 47 ]. Similarly, Gurgan et al [ 49 ] observed that Gradia DP outperformed EQUIA Fil.…”