Advertisement

European Archives of Paediatric Dentistry

, Volume 19, Issue 6, pp 393–401 | Cite as

Comparison of resin modified glass ionomer cement and composite resin in class II primary molar restorations: a 2-year parallel randomised clinical trial

  • A. DermataEmail author
  • S. N. Papageorgiou
  • S. Fragkou
  • N. Kotsanos
Original Scientific Article
  • 158 Downloads

Abstract

Aim

To compare the 2-year success rates of a Resin Modified Glass Ionomer Cement (RMGIC) with a composite resin in class II primary molar restorations.

Methods

Healthy, cooperative children aged 4–7.5 years with at least one carious primary molar requiring a class II restoration were included in this parallel randomised trial and allocated on a 1:1 basis to composite resin (Z250, 3M ESPE) or RMGIC (Vitremer, 3M ESPE). Restorations were assessed semiannually up to 2 years clinically and radiographically using modified United States Public Health Service criteria, with the primary outcome being all-cause failure. Data were analysed per protocol by binomial linear regression with Relative Risks (RR) and their 95% confidence intervals (CI).

Results

55 patients were randomly allocated to either group and 44 analysed at 2 years; with 49 teeth in the Z250 and 55 teeth in the Vitremer group. The all-cause failure rate for both materials was 3% after 1 year (4 and 2% for Z250 and Vitremer, respectively) and 16% after 2 years (16% for both Z250 and Vitremer). Overall, no difference between materials could be found at 2 years (RR = 1.4; 95% CI 0.8, 2.4; P = 0.30). However, Vitremer was associated with more favourable gingival health compared to composite (RR = 0.2; 95% CI 0.1, 0.9; P = 0.03), but also occlusal wear, which was observed exclusively for Vitremer.

Conclusion

No significant difference was found in the overall performance of the two materials, making them suitable for class II primary molar restorations, although RMGIC presented more pronounced occlusal wear of limited clinical importance after 2 years.

Keywords

Resin modified glass ionomer Composite resin Restorations Primary molar Randomised clinical trial 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have 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.

Supplementary material

40368_2018_371_MOESM1_ESM.docx (18 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 17 KB)

References

  1. Antony K, Genser D, Hiebinger C, Windisch F. Longevity of dental amalgam in comparison to composite materials. GMS Health Technol Assess. 2008;4:Doc12.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  2. Atieh M. Stainless steel crown versus modified open-sandwich restorations for primary molars: a 2-year randomized clinical trial. Int J Paediatr Dent. 2008;18(5):325–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Casagrande L, Dalpian DM, Ardenghi TM, et al. Randomized clinical trial of adhesive restorations in primary molars. 18-month results. Am J Dent. 2013;26(6):351–5.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Cvar J, Ryge G. Criteria for the clinical evaluation of dental restorative materials. San Francisco: US Government Printing Office; 1971. USPHS publ. no 790–240.Google Scholar
  5. De Gee AJ, van Duinen RN, Werner A, Davidson CL. Early and long-term wear of conventional and resin-modifies glass ionomers. J Dent Res. 1996;75(8):1613–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Donly KJ, Segura A, Kanellis M, Erickson RL. Clinical performance and caries inhibition of resin-modified glass ionomer cement and amalgam restorations. J Am Dent Assoc. 1999;130(10):1459–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Eley BM. The future of dental amalgam: a review of the literature. Part 6: possible harmful effects of mercury from dental amalgam. Br Dent J. 1997;182(12):455–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Espelid I, Tveit AB, Tornes KH, Alvheim H. Clinical behaviour of glass ionomer restorations in primary teeth. J Dent. 1999;27(6):437–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Folkesson UH, Andersson-Wenckert IE, van Dijken JWV. Resin-modified glass ionomer cement restorations in primary molars. Swed Dent J. 1999;23(1):1–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Fuks AB, Araujo FB, Osorio LB, Hadani PE, Pinto AS. Clinical and radiographic assessment of Class II esthetic restorations in primary molars. Pediatr Dent. 2000;22(5):479–85.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Granath L, Schröder U, Sundin B. Clinical evaluation of preventive and class-I composite resin restorations. Acta Odontol Scand. 1992;50(6):359–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hickel R. Glass ionomers, cermets, hybrid ionomers and compomers—(long-term) clinical evaluation. Trans Acad Dent Mater. 1996;9:105–29.Google Scholar
  13. Hickel R, Manhart J. Glass-ionomers and compomers in pediatric dentistry. In: Davidson CL, Mjor IA, editors. Advances in glass-ionomer cements. Batavia: Quintessence Publishing; 1999. pp. 201–226.Google Scholar
  14. Hickel R, Kaaden C, Paschos E, et al. Longevity of occlusally-stressed restorations in posterior primary teeth. Am J Dent. 2005;8(3):198–211.Google Scholar
  15. Honkala E, Behbehani J, Ibricevic H, Kerosuo E, Al Jame G. The atraumatic restorative treatment (ART) approach to restoring primary teeth in a standard dental clinic. Int J Paediatr Dent. 2003;13(3):172–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hse KMY, Wei SHI. Clinical evaluation of compomer in primary teeth: 1 year results. J Am Dent Assoc. 1997;128(8):1088–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hübel S, Mejàre S. Conventional versus resin-modified glass-ionomer cement for Class II restorations in primary molars. A 3-year clinical study. Int J Paediatr Dent. 2003;13(1):2–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kotsanos N. An intraoral study of caries induced on enamel in contact with fluoride-releasing restorative materials. Caries Res. 2001;35(3):200–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kotsanos N, Arizos S. Evaluation of a resin modified glass ionomer serving both as indirect pulp therapy and as restorative material for primary molars. Eur Arch Paediatr Dent. 2011;12(3):170–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Milsom KM, Tickle M, Blinkhorn A. The prescription and relative outcomes of different materials used in general dental practice in the north west region of England to restore the primary dentition. J Dent. 2002;30(2–3):77–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Mitra SB, Kedrowski BL. Long-term mechanical properties of glass ionomers. Dent Mater. 1994;10(2):78–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Mjör IA, Dahl JE, Moorhead JE. Placement and replacement of restorations in primary teeth. Acta Odontol Scand. 2002;60(1):25–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Nicholson J, Croll TP. Glass-ionomer cements in restorative dentistry. Quintessence Int. 1997;28(11):705–14.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Opdam NJ, Bronkhorst EM, Loomans BA, Huysmans MC. 12-year survival of composite vs. amalgam restorations. J Dent Res. 2010;89(10):1063–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Santos VR, Lucchesi JA, Cortelli SC, et al. Effects of glass ionomer and microfilled composite subgingival restorations on periodontal tissue and subgingival biofilm: a 6-month evaluation. J Periodontol. 2007;78(8):1522–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Sengul F, Gurbuz T. Clinical evaluation of restorative materials in primary teeth class II lesions. J Clin Pediatr Dent. 2015;39(4):315–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Soncini JA, Meserejian NN, Trachtenberg F, Tavares M, Hayes C. The longevity of amalgam versus compomer/ composite restorations in posterior primary and permanent teeth: findings from the New England Children’s Amalgam Trial. J Am Dent Assoc. 2007;138(6):763–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Varpio M. Proximocclusal composite restorations in primary molars: a six-year follow-up. ASDC J Dent Child. 1985;52(6):435–40.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Weinberg S. Variable selection. In: Weisberg S, editor. Applied Linear Regression, 4th edn. New York: Wiley; 2013. pp. 227–44.Google Scholar
  30. Wilson AD, Kent BE. A new transluscent cement for dentistry. The glass ionomer cement. Br Dent J. 1972;132(4):133–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© European Academy of Paediatric Dentistry 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Paediatric Dentistry, Dental SchoolAristotle University of ThessalonikiThessalonikiGreece
  2. 2.Clinic of Orthodontics and Pediatric Dentistry, Center of Dental MedicineUniversity of ZurichZurichSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations