Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

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

  • Original Scientific Article
  • Published:
European Archives of Paediatric Dentistry Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Antony K, Genser D, Hiebinger C, Windisch F. Longevity of dental amalgam in comparison to composite materials. GMS Health Technol Assess. 2008;4:Doc12.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Espelid I, Tveit AB, Tornes KH, Alvheim H. Clinical behaviour of glass ionomer restorations in primary teeth. J Dent. 1999;27(6):437–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Granath L, Schröder U, Sundin B. Clinical evaluation of preventive and class-I composite resin restorations. Acta Odontol Scand. 1992;50(6):359–64.

    Article  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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hse KMY, Wei SHI. Clinical evaluation of compomer in primary teeth: 1 year results. J Am Dent Assoc. 1997;128(8):1088–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kotsanos N. An intraoral study of caries induced on enamel in contact with fluoride-releasing restorative materials. Caries Res. 2001;35(3):200–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mitra SB, Kedrowski BL. Long-term mechanical properties of glass ionomers. Dent Mater. 1994;10(2):78–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mjör IA, Dahl JE, Moorhead JE. Placement and replacement of restorations in primary teeth. Acta Odontol Scand. 2002;60(1):25–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nicholson J, Croll TP. Glass-ionomer cements in restorative dentistry. Quintessence Int. 1997;28(11):705–14.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Opdam NJ, Bronkhorst EM, Loomans BA, Huysmans MC. 12-year survival of composite vs. amalgam restorations. J Dent Res. 2010;89(10):1063–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sengul F, Gurbuz T. Clinical evaluation of restorative materials in primary teeth class II lesions. J Clin Pediatr Dent. 2015;39(4):315–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Varpio M. Proximocclusal composite restorations in primary molars: a six-year follow-up. ASDC J Dent Child. 1985;52(6):435–40.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Weinberg S. Variable selection. In: Weisberg S, editor. Applied Linear Regression, 4th edn. New York: Wiley; 2013. pp. 227–44.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilson AD, Kent BE. A new transluscent cement for dentistry. The glass ionomer cement. Br Dent J. 1972;132(4):133–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Paediatric Dentistry, Dental School, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Thessaloniki, Greece

    A. Dermata, S. Fragkou & N. Kotsanos

  2. Clinic of Orthodontics and Pediatric Dentistry, Center of Dental Medicine, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland

    S. N. Papageorgiou

Authors
  1. A. Dermata
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. S. N. Papageorgiou
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. S. Fragkou
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. N. Kotsanos
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to A. Dermata.

Ethics declarations

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.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 17 KB)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Dermata, A., Papageorgiou, S.N., Fragkou, S. et al. Comparison of resin modified glass ionomer cement and composite resin in class II primary molar restorations: a 2-year parallel randomised clinical trial. Eur Arch Paediatr Dent 19, 393–401 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40368-018-0371-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40368-018-0371-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation