Comparison of resin modified glass ionomer cement and composite resin in class II primary molar restorations: a 2-year parallel randomised clinical trial
- 158 Downloads
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.
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).
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.
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.
KeywordsResin modified glass ionomer Composite resin Restorations Primary molar Randomised clinical trial
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
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.
- 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
- Hickel R. Glass ionomers, cermets, hybrid ionomers and compomers—(long-term) clinical evaluation. Trans Acad Dent Mater. 1996;9:105–29.Google Scholar
- 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
- 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
- Weinberg S. Variable selection. In: Weisberg S, editor. Applied Linear Regression, 4th edn. New York: Wiley; 2013. pp. 227–44.Google Scholar