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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Espelid I, Tveit AB, Tornes KH, Alvheim H. Clinical behaviour of glass ionomer restorations in primary teeth. J Dent. 1999;27(6):437–42.
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.
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.
Granath L, Schröder U, Sundin B. Clinical evaluation of preventive and class-I composite resin restorations. Acta Odontol Scand. 1992;50(6):359–64.
Hickel R. Glass ionomers, cermets, hybrid ionomers and compomers—(long-term) clinical evaluation. Trans Acad Dent Mater. 1996;9:105–29.
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.
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.
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.
Hse KMY, Wei SHI. Clinical evaluation of compomer in primary teeth: 1 year results. J Am Dent Assoc. 1997;128(8):1088–96.
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.
Kotsanos N. An intraoral study of caries induced on enamel in contact with fluoride-releasing restorative materials. Caries Res. 2001;35(3):200–4.
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.
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.
Mitra SB, Kedrowski BL. Long-term mechanical properties of glass ionomers. Dent Mater. 1994;10(2):78–82.
Mjör IA, Dahl JE, Moorhead JE. Placement and replacement of restorations in primary teeth. Acta Odontol Scand. 2002;60(1):25–8.
Nicholson J, Croll TP. Glass-ionomer cements in restorative dentistry. Quintessence Int. 1997;28(11):705–14.
Opdam NJ, Bronkhorst EM, Loomans BA, Huysmans MC. 12-year survival of composite vs. amalgam restorations. J Dent Res. 2010;89(10):1063–7.
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.
Sengul F, Gurbuz T. Clinical evaluation of restorative materials in primary teeth class II lesions. J Clin Pediatr Dent. 2015;39(4):315–21.
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.
Varpio M. Proximocclusal composite restorations in primary molars: a six-year follow-up. ASDC J Dent Child. 1985;52(6):435–40.
Weinberg S. Variable selection. In: Weisberg S, editor. Applied Linear Regression, 4th edn. New York: Wiley; 2013. pp. 227–44.
Wilson AD, Kent BE. A new transluscent cement for dentistry. The glass ionomer cement. Br Dent J. 1972;132(4):133–5.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
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.
Rights and permissions
About this article
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
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40368-018-0371-7