Clinical Evaluation of Glass Ionomer Cement Restorations
Keywords:
Glass Ionomer Cement (GIC), Resin-Modified GIC, Dental Restorations, Adhesion, Secondary CariesAbstract
Background: Dental restorative materials have changed over the last decades with the ultimate goals in mind; the esthetic requirements of the restored teeth and the role of the restoration in preventing secondary caries.
Objective: To evaluate the effectiveness of conventional and resin-modified GICs in clinical application, emphasizing adhesion and cariogenic potential.
Methodology: This cross-sectional study was conducted over one year. January 2023 to January 2024. The sample size calculated was 150. The patients who came within our research inclusion criteria were explained the study aim and method, and potential inconveniences collected data were entered and analyzed using SPSS version 24.0. The analysis involved both descriptive and inferential statistical methods.
Results: Resin-modified GIC demonstrated significantly higher adhesion success compared to conventional GIC (p = 0.00001), while adhesion failure was more frequent with conventional GIC. Secondary caries were significantly less prevalent with resin-modified GIC than with conventional GIC (p = 0.003). Age was significantly associated with secondary caries (p < 0.00001), with the highest prevalence in the 51–65 age group, but not with adhesion success (p = 0.783). Gender significantly influenced adhesion outcomes (p = 0.003), with females showing higher success rates than males. Females had a higher prevalence of secondary caries than males (p = 0.083).
Conclusion: The use of resin-modified GIC has a higher percentage of adhesion success and better caries control than conventional GIC. Based on the improved durability and wear resistance of the restored material, resin-modified GIC would be preferred for cases where caries activity could be considered ‘‘higher,’’ or where maintaining an optimal moisture content would be difficult. Such findings support the consideration of materials in restoring teeth in the best way possible with the aim of satisfying patients
Downloads
Metrics
References
Aby, H. (2020). A Clinical Evaluation of Bulk Fill GIC Versus Bulk Fill Composite in Primary Molars: A Split Mouth Randomized Clinical Trial. Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences (India),
Albelasy, E. H., Hamama, H. H., Chew, H. P., Montaser, M., & Mahmoud, S. H. (2022). Secondary caries and marginal adaptation of ion-releasing versus resin composite restorations: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials. Scientific Reports, 12(1), 19244.
Alzebiani, N. (2023). The ability of Experimental Resin Modified Glass Ionomer Cements (RMGICs) to Remineralise and Form Apatite on Immersion. Queen Mary University of London,
Amin, F., Rahman, S., Khurshid, Z., Zafar, M. S., Sefat, F., & Kumar, N. (2021). Effect of nanostructures on the properties of glass ionomer dental restoratives/cements: a comprehensive narrative review. Materials, 14(21), 6260.
Basheer, H. (2020). Comparative Evaluation of Compressive Strength, Microleakage, Fluoride Release and Recharge Ability of Various Glass Ionomer Based Restorative Materials: An in Vitro Study. Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences (India),
Borges, A. B., Torres, C. R. G., & Schlueter, N. (2020). Preventive Measures and Minimally Invasive Restorative Procedures. Modern Operative Dentistry: Principles for Clinical Practice, 631-666.
Dionysopoulos, D., Gerasimidou, O., & Papadopoulos, C. (2022). Modifications of glass ionomer cement using nanotechnology: recent advances. Recent Progress in Materials, 4(2), 1-22.
Dziuk, Y., Chhatwani, S., Möhlhenrich, S. C., Tulka, S., Naumova, E. A., & Danesh, G. (2021). Fluoride release from two types of fluoride-containing orthodontic adhesives: Conventional versus resin-modified glass ionomer cement—An in vitro study. PLoS One, 16(2), e0247716.
Ge, K. X., Quock, R., Chu, C.-H., & Yu, O. Y. (2022). The preventive effect of glass ionomer restorations on new caries formation: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Dentistry, 125, 104272.
Ge, K. X., Quock, R., Chu, C.-H., & Yu, O. Y. (2023). The preventive effect of glass ionomer cement restorations on secondary caries formation: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Dental Materials.
Hill, R. (2022). Glass ionomer polyalkenoate cement and related materials: past, present and future. British Dental Journal, 232(9), 653-657.
Jaiswal, M. (2020). Comparative Evaluation of the Demineralization Inhibition Potential of Bioactive Composite Restorations in Primary Teeth: An in Vitro Study. Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences (India),
Kawai, Y., de Souza, R., & Fine, J. (2024). Randomized Controlled Trials in Restorative Dentistry and Prosthodontics. In Randomized Controlled Trials in Evidence-Based Dentistry (pp. 199-224): Springer.
Khalil, R. J., & Al-Shamma, A. M. (2024). Micro-shear bond strength of a novel resin-modified glass ionomer luting cement (eRMGIC) functionalized with organophosphorus monomer to different dental substrates. Heliyon, 10(9).
Koç-Vural, U., Kerimova-Köse, L., & Kiremitci, A. (2024). Long-term clinical comparison of a resin-based composite and resin-modified glass ionomer in the treatment of cervical caries lesions. Odontology, 1-12.
Kotsanos, N., & Wong, F. (2022). Restoration of Carious Hard Dental Tissues. In Pediatric Dentistry (pp. 281-314): Springer.
Lekha, K. C. (2020). Comparative Evaluation of Compressive Strength, Diametral Tensile Strength, Microhardness, Microleakage, Fluoride Release and Recharge of Resin Modified Gic (Fuji Ii Lc), Bioactive Restorative (Activa Kids) and Alkasite Restorative (Cention N): An in Vitro Study. Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences (India),
Mustafa, H. A., Soares, A. P., Paris, S., Elhennawy, K., & Zaslansky, P. (2020). The forgotten merits of GIC restorations: A systematic review. Clinical Oral Investigations, 24, 2189-2201.
Pires, P. M., Neves, A. d. A., Makeeva, I. M., Schwendicke, F., Faus-Matoses, V., Yoshihara, K., . . . Sauro, S. (2020). Contemporary restorative ion-releasing materials: Current status, interfacial properties, and operative approaches. British Dental Journal, 229(7), 450-458.
Reza Rezaie, H., Beigi Rizi, H., Rezaei Khamseh, M. M., Öchsner, A., Reza Rezaie, H., Beigi Rizi, H., . . . Öchsner, A. (2020). Dental restorative materials. A Review on Dental Materials, 47-171.
Saher, T. (2019). Bioactive Glass–A New Horizon of Composite: Fluoride Release and Uptake in Comparison with GIC, Resin Modified GIC–An in Vitro Study. Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences (India),
Satish, N. S. (2020). Effect of Silver Diamine Fluoride Pretreatment on Microtensile Bond Strength of Dentin and Microleakage of Resin Composite in Primary Molars: “An in Vitro Study. Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences (India),
Sreejith, S. L., & Saraswathy, M. (2024). Modifications of polyalkenoic acid and its effect on glass ionomer cement. Materials Advances.
Vichitgomen, J. (2020). Effect of deep margin elevation with resin composite and resin-modified glass ionomer on marginal sealing of CAD/CAM ceramic inlays: an in vitro study.
Zhou, X., Huang, X., Li, M., Peng, X., Wang, S., Zhou, X., & Cheng, L. (2019). Development and status of resin composite as dental restorative materials. Journal of Applied Polymer Science, 136(44), 48180..
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
You are free to:
- Share — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format
- Adapt — remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose, even commercially.
Terms:
- Attribution — You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.
- No additional restrictions — You may not apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits.
