Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Clinical performance of high-viscosity glass ionomer and resin composite on minimally invasive occlusal restorations performed without rubber-dam isolation: a two-year randomised split-mouth study

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Clinical Oral Investigations Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objective

The aim of this clinical trial was to evaluate the 2-year clinical performances of high-viscosity glass ionomer and nanohybrid resin composite restorations performed without rubber dam isolation.

Materials and methods

Occlusal carious lesions on the right and left mandibular second molars of 56 patients (26 female, 30 male patients) were restored in a split-mouth design. High-viscosity glass ionomer (Hv-GIC) (Equia, GC) and nanohybrid resin composite (GrandioSO, Voco) were used as restorative materials. Clinical evaluations of the restorations were performed according to the Fédération Dentaire Internationale criteria. Data were analysed using the Friedman’s analysis of variance and Mann-Whitney U tests (α=0.05).

Results

After 2 years, the success rate of Hv-GIC restorations was 96% and that of resin composite restorations was 100%. Hv-GIC showed lower marginal discoloration and greater surface wear and loss of anatomic form (p<0.05). Resin composite showed significantly better surface lustre.

Conclusion

The 2-year performance of resin composite was similar to that of Hv-GIC for the occlusal restorations of mandibular second molars, in spite of being performed without rubber-dam isolation.

Clinical relevance

Saliva contamination can be a clinically significant problem for dental restorations. High-viscosity glass ionomers are a satisfactory alternative to resin composites with the advantage of fast application in such situations.

Trial registration

Clinical Trials Registration number-date: NCT04488380-22/07/2020, retrospectively registered.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Nair P, Hickel R, Ilie N (2017) Adverse effects of salivary contamination for adhesives in restorative dentistry. A literature review. Am J Dent 30(3):156–164

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Summitt JB, Robbins JW, Hilton TJ, Schwartz RS, Dos Santos J Jr (2006) Fundamentals of operative dentistry: a contemporary approach. Quintessence Pub, Chicago

    Google Scholar 

  3. Kucukyilmaz E, Celik E, Akcay M, Yasa B (2017) Influence of blood contamination during multimode adhesive application on the microtensile bond strength to dentin. Niger J Clin Pract 20(12):1644–1650

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. de Carvalho Mendonça EC, Vieira SN, Kawaguchi FA, Powers J, Matos AB (2010) Influence of blood contamination on bond strength of a self-etching system. Eur J Dentist 4(03):280–286

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Alqarni MA, Mathew VB, Alsalhi IYA, Alasmari ASF, Alqisi AYA, Asiri RAH, Khateeb SU (2019) Rubber dam isolation in clinical adhesive dentistry: the prevalence and assessment of associated radiolucencies. J Dent Res Rev 6(4):97

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Hill EE, Rubel BS (2008) Do dental educators need to improve their approach to teaching rubber dam use? J Dent Educ 72(10):1177–1181

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Roberson T, Heymann HO, Swift EJ Jr (2006) Sturdevant’s art and science of operative dentistry. Mosby, St. Louis

  8. Affoo RH, Foley N, Garrick R, Siqueira WL, Martin RE (2015) Meta-analysis of salivary flow rates in young and older adults. J Am Geriatr Soc 63(10):2142–2151

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Pereira T (2016) Silver amalgam: a clinician’s perspective. J Restor Dentist 4(2):25

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Tyas MJ, Anusavice KJ, Frencken JE, Mount GJ (2000) Minimal intervention dentistry—a review* FDI Commission Project 1–97. Int Dent J 50(1):1–12

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Ricketts D, Lamont T, Innes NP, Kidd E, Clarkson JE (2013) Operative caries management in adults and children. Cochrane Database Syst Rev (3). https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD003808.pub3

  12. Fisher J, Varenne B, Narvaez D, Vickers C (2018) The Minamata Convention and the phase down of dental amalgam. Bull World Health Organ 96(6):436

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Mustafa HA, Soares AP, Paris S, Elhennawy K, Zaslansky P (2020) The forgotten merits of GIC restorations: a systematic review. Clin Oral Investig 24(7):2189–2201

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Friedl K, Hiller K-A, Friedl K-H (2011) Clinical performance of a new glass ionomer based restoration system: a retrospective cohort study. Dent Mater 27(10):1031–1037

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Wang X, Yap AUJ, Ngo H (2006) Effect of early water exposure on the strength of glass ionomer restoratives. Oper Dent 31(5):584–589

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Gurgan S, Kutuk ZB, Cakir FY, Ergin E (2019) A randomized controlled 10 years follow up of a glass ionomer restorative material in class I and class II cavities. J Dent. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2019.07.013

  17. Türkün L, Kanik Ö (2016) A prospective six-year clinical study evaluating reinforced glass ionomer cements with resin coating on posterior teeth: quo vadis? Oper Dent 41(6):587–598

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Loguercio A, Luque-Martinez I, Lisboa A, Higashi C, Queiroz VO, Rego R, Reis A (2015) Influence of isolation method of the operative field on gingival damage, patients’ preference, and restoration retention in noncarious cervical lesions. Oper Dent 40(6):581–593

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Demarco FF, Collares K, Correa MB, Cenci MS, Moraes RRD, Opdam NJ (2017) Should my composite restorations last forever? Why are they failing? Braz Oral Res 31(suppl):e56. https://doi.org/10.1590/1807-3107bor-2017.vol31.0056

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Schulz KF, Altman DG, Moher D, Group C (2010) CONSORT 2010 statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. Trials 11(1):32

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Hickel R, Peschke A, Tyas M, Mjör I, Bayne S, Peters M, Hiller K-A, Randall R, Vanherle G, Heintze SD (2010) FDI World Dental Federation: clinical criteria for the evaluation of direct and indirect restorations—update and clinical examples. Clin Oral Investig 14(4):349–366

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Lohbauer U (2010) Dental glass ionomer cements as permanent filling materials?–properties, limitations and future trends. Materials 3(1):76–96

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Celik EU, Tunac AT, Yilmaz F (2019) Three-year clinical evaluation of high-viscosity glass ionomer restorations in non-carious cervical lesions: a randomised controlled split-mouth clinical trial. Clin Oral Investig 23(3):1473–1480

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Basso M, Brambilla E, Benites M, Giovannardi M, Ionescu A (2015) Glassionomer cement for permanent dental restorations: a 48-months, multi-centre, prospective clinical trial. Stoma Educ J 2(1):25–35

    Google Scholar 

  25. Gurgan S, Kutuk ZB, Ergin E, Oztas SS, Cakir FY (2017) Clinical performance of a glass ionomer restorative system: a 6-year evaluation. Clin Oral Investig 21(7):2335–2343

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Jung M, Eichelberger K, Klimek J (2007) Surface geometry of four nanofiller and one hybrid composite after one-step and multiple-step polishing. Oper Dent 32(4):347–355

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Yazici AR, Tuncer D, Antonson S, Onen A, Kilinc E (2010) Effects of delayed finishing/polishing on surface roughness, hardness and gloss of tooth-coloured restorative materials. Eur J Dentist 4(1):50–56

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Heintze SD (2013) Clinical relevance of tests on bond strength, microleakage and marginal adaptation. Dent Mater 29(1):59–84

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Sabbagh J, McConnell R, McConnell MC (2017) Posterior composites: update on cavities and filling techniques. J Dent 57:86–90

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Kunzelmann K (1996) Glass-ionomer cements, cermet cements,“hybrid”-glass-ionomers and compomers–laboratory trials–wear resistance. Trans Acad Dent Mater 9:89–104

    Google Scholar 

  31. Wang Y, Li C, Yuan H, Wong MC, Zou J, Shi Z, Zhou X (2016) Rubber dam isolation for restorative treatment in dental patients. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 9(9):CD009858. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD009858.pub2

  32. Fabián Molina G, Cabral RJ, Mazzola I, Brain Lascano L, Frencken JE (2013) Biaxial flexural strength of high-viscosity glass-ionomer cements heat-cured with an LED lamp during setting. Biomed Res Int. https://doi.org/10.1155/2013/838460

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Dr. Hakan Hatırlı and Dr. Osman Demir for assistance with the statistical analysis.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Restorative Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, Tokat Gaziosmanpasa University, 60030, Tokat, Turkey

    Hüseyin Hatirli

  2. Department of Restorative Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, Izmir Katip Celebi University, Izmir, Turkey

    Bilal Yasa & Esra Uzer Çelik

Authors
  1. Hüseyin Hatirli
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Bilal Yasa
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Esra Uzer Çelik
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Hüseyin Hatirli.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

Author Hüseyin Hatirli declares that he has no conflict of interest. Author Bilal Yasa declares that he has no conflict of interest. Author Esra Uzer Çelik declares that she has no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Hatirli, H., Yasa, B. & Çelik, E.U. Clinical performance of high-viscosity glass ionomer and resin composite on minimally invasive occlusal restorations performed without rubber-dam isolation: a two-year randomised split-mouth study. Clin Oral Invest 25, 5493–5503 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-021-03857-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-021-03857-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation