Conventional versus resin-modified glass-ionomer cement for Class II restorations in primary molars. A 3-year clinical study

Summary. Objective. To compare the clinical performance of two glass‐ionomer cements (GICs)for Class II restorations in primary molars: a conventional cement (Fuji II®) and a resin‐modified cement (Vitremer®). Design. Split mouth and random assignment to the two materials were used for the majority of the molars. Sample and methods. Forty consecutive 4–7‐year‐old children were included. One operator made 115 restorations: 53 with Vitremer and 62 with Fuji II. The restorations were evaluated clinically, radiographically and from colour photographs. Results. The cumulative success rate of the Vitremer restorations was 94% and that of the Fuji II restorations 81%. The difference is statistically significant. The risk of a failed restoration was more than five times higher with Fuji II than with Vitremer as the restorative material. Of the 13 unsuccessful restorations, seven had lost their retention, four had secondary caries, and two were fractured. Conclusions. The resin‐modified GIC offered advantages over the conventional GIC for restoring approximal caries in primary molars.     

Clinical performance and caries inhibition of resin-modified glass ionomer cement and amalgam restorations

BACKGROUND: The authors clinically examined two restorative materials to evaluate their effectiveness in Class II restorations in primary molars and their ability to inhibit recurrent caries. METHODS: Forty subjects, each in need of two Class II restorations in primary molars, took part in this study. Each patient received one Class II restoration of resin-modified glass ionomer cement and one of amalgam. The authors evaluated the restorations at six-month, one-year, two-year and three-year recall appointments. On exfoliation, teeth with experimental restorations were retrieved and microscopically examined for inhibition of demineralization at restoration margins. RESULTS: The results of the clinical evaluation demonstrated no significant differences between the resin-modified glass ionomer cement restorations and the amalgam restorations (P < .05). Polarized light microscopic examination of the returned teeth that were restored as a part of this study indicated that the resin-modified glass ionomer cement had significantly less enamel demineralization at restoration margins than did amalgam (P < .0001). CONCLUSIONS: The resin-modified glass ionomer cement functioned clinically as well as amalgam for Class II restorations in primary molars. However, the resin-modified glass ionomer exhibited significantly less enamel demineralization at restoration margins than did amalgam. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: Resin-modified glass ionomer cement restorative material functions well for Class II restorations in primary molars and exhibits less recurrent caries at restoration margins than does amalgam.     

Enamel and plaque fluoride following glass ionomer application in vivo.

Glass ionomer fillings have been suggested to act as a fluoride-releasing system in the mouth. The aim of the present study was to evaluate whether a glass ionomer slab applied on the enamel can increase the fluoride content of the enamel and plaque of adjacent teeth in real-life conditions with frequent exposure to fluoride from other sources. Twenty-five adults living in a town with fluoridated drinking water participated in the study. The initial enamel fluoride content on the buccal surface of the contralateral premolars was determined using the acid etch biopsy technique. A round glass ionomer slab was placed buccally on the first molar on a randomly chosen side of the mouth (test side). After 2 weeks, the enamel fluoride content of premolars on the test and control sides was again determined whilst avoiding the site of the first biopsy. In addition, one biopsy was made on a previously etched area. After 2 and 4 weeks, plaque was collected from three approximal surfaces both on the test and control side, and the total fluoride content of the plaque was analysed. There were no significant differences in the fluoride content of sound or etched enamel before and after placement of glass ionomer. The fluoride content of approximal plaque of teeth close to glass ionomer was not higher than that of the control teeth, either after 2 or 4 weeks. Using the present method, no increase in the fluoride level of teeth adjacent to glass ionomer could be demonstrated. This may be due to the masking effect of fluoride from other sources.     

Artificial formed caries-like lesions around esthetic restorative materials

Dental restorations fail for a variety of reasons. Secondary caries is one of the primary causes of failure of dental restorations. One method for reducing frequency and severity of this problem is the use of fluoride containing restorative materials. The ability of a material to inhibit secondary caries formation is an important clinical therapeutic property. This investigation assessed the capacity of esthetic restorative materials to resist caries in vitro. Class V cavities were prepared in buccal and lingual surfaces of 50 extracted sound third molars. The occlusal and gingival cavosurface margin of each preparation was on enamel surface. The five materials were used: Conventional glass ionomer cement Ceramfil beta (PSP), two polyacid modified resin composites Compoglass (Vivadent) and Dyract (Dentsply/DeTrey), non fluoride releasing composite resin Valux Plus (3M) and fluoride releasing composite resin Tetric (Vivadent). After 10 weeks in an acid gel for caries-like lesion formation, the teeth were sectioned occluso-gingivally through the middle of the restorations and examined by polarized light microscopy, while immersed in water. The statistical analysis of the results showed that secondary caries initiation and progression might be reduced significantly when fluoride-containing materials were placed. The conventional glass ionomer cement (Ceramfil beta) provided the highest protection against caries attack and the non-fluoride releasing composite resin (Valux Plus) restoration provided the least (p<0.05).     

Three restorative materials and topical fluoride gel used in xerostomic patients: a clinical comparison

BACKGROUND: The authors compare the incidence of recurrent caries around two glass ionomer restorative materials and one amalgam material. METHODS: The authors placed 111 restorations in nine xerostomic patients. Patients were given oral hygiene instructions and fluoride gel to use daily. The authors evaluated the restorations clinically and with photographs and impressions at six months, one year and two years according to criteria for marginal adaptation, anatomical form, caries in adjacent tooth structure and caries at the cavosurface margin. The authors divided patients into users and nonusers of fluoride. RESULTS: At the two-year recall appointments, the authors evaluated 95 (86 percent) of the 111 restorations. They analyzed two-year data using an analysis of variance for repeated measures and Fisher's post hoc test. The study results showed no significant differences among materials in regard to caries at the cavosurface margin among fluoride users. However, among fluoride nonusers, patients with amalgam restorations had a significantly higher incidence of caries at the cavosurface margins than did patients with either of the two glass ionomer restorations. The authors found no statistically significant difference between restorations with regard to marginal integrity or anatomical form. However, one patient exhibited failure of glass ionomer restorations owing to material loss. CONCLUSIONS: Less caries developed at the margins of glass ionomer restorations compared with amalgam restorations in xerostomic patients who did not routinely use a neutral topical sodium fluoride gel. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: Fluoride-releasing materials may reduce caries surrounding restorations in high-risk patients who do not routinely use topical fluoride. Patients who routinely used topical fluoride gel did not develop recurrent caries, and clinicians should encourage the use of fluoride gel on a daily basis.     

Clinical behaviour of glass ionomer restorations in primary teeth.

OBJECTIVE: To compare a silver-reinforced glass ionomer material (cermet) with a resin-modified glass ionomer in minimal Class II preparations in primary teeth. METHODS: Matched pairs of primary molars with approximal caries that required operative treatment were used. Each cavity was filled with either Vitremer or Ketac-Silver. The restorations were followed for at least 36 months and examined annually using bitewing radiographs and clinical inspections. Impressions were taken at each recall and models were examined microscopically. RESULTS: After 36 months, one of the resin-modified glass ionomer (RMGI) restorations and 13 (26.5%) of the silver cermet restorations had failed. The RMGI failed because of secondary caries, while most of the failures of the silver cermet fillings were marginal defects alone or in combination with secondary caries. The median survival time (MST) for the silver cermet restorations was 37 months. The RMGI restorations had a MST exceeding 42 months, but MST could not be calculated exactly because of the low failure rate during the study period. CONCLUSIONS: The resin-modified glass ionomer had the overall best performance of the two materials under comparison. The silver cermet material cannot be recommended for Class II restorations in primary teeth.     

Durability of extensive Class II open-sandwich restorations with a resin-modified glass ionomer cement after 6 years

PURPOSE: To evaluate the durability of a modified open-sandwich restoration utilizing a resin-modified glass ionomer cement (RMGIC) in large cavities. METHODS: 268, mostly extensive, Class II Vitremer/Z100 restorations were placed in 151 patients. 47% of the restorations were placed in patients considered as caries-risk patients. Six experimental groups, differing from each other in thickness of RMGIC layer and preconditioning, were evaluated at baseline and annually during 6-7 years according to modified USPHS criteria. RESULTS: After 6 years, 220 restorations were evaluated. 42 failures (19%) were observed. The most frequent reasons for failure were material fracture (n = 11), tooth fractures (n = 9) and secondary caries (n = 10). Non-acceptable proximal dissolution of the RMGIC was seen in six restorations. Significantly more failures, but similar dissolution of the RMGIC, were recorded in high caries risk patients. No differences were seen between the experimental groups or between restorations with thick or thin RMGIC layer. 160 restorations were also evaluated at 7 years. Another 13 failures were observed, eight with non-acceptable dissolution, three secondary caries and two fractures. It can be concluded that the modified open sandwich restoration showed an acceptable durability for the extensive restorations evaluated. An accelerating dissolution of the RMGIC was observed at the end of the study.     

A clinical comparison of glass ionomer,resin-modified glass ionomer and resin composite restorations in the treatment of cervical caries in xerostomic head and neck radiation patients

Controversy exists as to whether there is less secondary caries at the margins of glass ionomer restorations compared with other materials that do not release fluoride. This study examined the incidence of secondary caries for three types of restorative materials in Class V restorations in xerostomic patients. The study group consisted of 45 high caries-risk adult patients who had undergone head and neck irradiation for the treatment of cancer. All were substantially xerostomic and in need of at least three restorations in the same arch. Every patient received a restoration with each of the test materials, a conventional glass ionomer (GI), a resin modified glass ionomer (RMGI) and a resin composite (C). Patients were instructed in the daily use of a neutral pH sodium fluoride gel in custom trays. Recall appointments were made at 6, 12, 18 and 24 months, and the restorations were examined for material loss, marginal integrity and recurrent caries at the restoration margin. Fluoride compliance was determined at each recall period and recorded as the percentage of recommended use during that interval. Patients were categorized at the end of the study as fluoride non-users if their average compliance was 50% or less. Those with greater than 50% compliance were categorized as fluoride users. In the latter group, no recurrent caries was found for any of the restorations, whereas a material-dependent incidence of recurrent caries was found in the fluoride non-user group. None of the GI, one RMGI and eight C restorations failed due to recurrent caries. For the fluoride non-user patients, Fishers exact test (p=0.05) showed no statistical difference between GI and RMGI but statistical differences were found among those materials and resin composite at each recall period. Recurrent caries reductions for GI and RMGI relative to C were greater than 80% in xerostomic patients not using topical fluoride supplementation.     

An in vitro investigation of marginal dentine caries abutting composite resin and glass ionomer cement restorations

BACKGROUND: There are a number of studies citing the primary reason for replacing auto cure glass ionomer cements was due to recurrent caries. The purpose of this study was to use an in vitro model to measure caries at the dentine restoration interface of bonded composite resin and auto cure glass ionomer cement restorations and to measure the amount of surface degradation occurring in the restorative materials. METHODS: Specimens of auto cure glass ionomer cements (Riva Fast, Fuji IX Fast, Ketac Molar Quick and Fuji VII) and bonded composite resin restorations (Ice, SDI) were placed separately at the dentino-enamel junction of 10 recently extracted human third molar teeth, disinfected and placed into the overflow from a continuous culture of S. mutans for two weeks. Restorations were sectioned and prepared for scanning electron microscopy (SEM) and electron probe microanalysis (EPMA). Restoration tooth interfaces were photographed and the distance from the surface of the teeth to the surface of the restorations measured. EPMA of percentage weights of calcium, phosphorous and fluoride were made outwards from the restoration surface 130pm at a depth of 10 microm below the surface of the dentine. RESULTS: There were significant differences between the surface heights of composite resin, auto cure glass ionomer cements compared to teeth surfaces. Percentage weights of calcium and phosphorus levels were similar to non-demineralized dentine in the auto cure glass ionomer cement samples but there were significant reductions in mineral content of dentine adjacent to bonded composite resin restorations. Fluoride levels were mixed. CONCLUSIONS: This study shows that placing a bonded composite resin restoration into dentine affords little protection to the surrounding tooth from caries attack although insignificant degradation of the restorative surface occurs. Placing a glass ionomer cement restoration into dentine protects the surrounding tooth from caries but degradation of the restoration surface occurs.     

Microhardness of enamel restored with fluoride and non-fluoride releasing dental materials

Demineralization caused by frequent ion loss can be detected by a decrease in enamel microhardness. The purpose of this study was to determine the microhardness of the enamel adjacent to restorations with fluoride and non-fluoride dental materials after demineralization and remineralization treatments using crowns of 6 recently extracted unerupted third molars which were sectioned into 4 parts. Five penetrations were made in the enamel of the control group and in the enamel adjacent to restorations made with Vitremer, Heliomolar or Z100, to obtain the Knoop microhardness. There was no significant statistical difference between the microhardness of the enamel of the control group and the enamel adjacent to the restorations made with Vitremer and Heliomolar (p < 0.01), nor between the enamel adjacent to the Heliomolar and Z100 restorations. However, there was a statistically significant difference when the Z100 group was compared to the control group and to the Vitremer group. The results point out that some phenomena occurred which interferred with the ionic loss and, consequently, the microhardness of the enamel of the Vitremer and Heliomolar groups, because it was not possible to observe any difference between the microhardness of the enamel of the control group and the groups restored with Vitremer and Heliomolar.     

In vitro evaluation of the cariostatic action of esthetic restorative materials in bovine teeth under severe cariogenic challenge

Considering that caries around restorations is a serious problem in dentistry, and some restorative materials with fluoride may be important in inhibiting these lesions, this research is aimed at performing an in vitro evaluation of the cariostatic action of some esthetic restorative materials. Standardized cavities were prepared in the center of either intact blocks of bovine enamel or with bovine teeth containing early artificial carious lesions. The specimens were restored with a high viscosity glass ionomer cement (Molar Ketac), a resin-modified glass ionomer cement (Vitremer), a polyacid-modified resin composite (Dyract AP) and a conventional resin composite (Z-250). In addition to the restored specimens, four corresponding control groups were evaluated. All groups, except for two control groups, were subjected to a demineralization/remineralization cycling model for 14 days, simulating a situation of severe cariogenic challenge. The blocks were then longitudinally sectioned through the restorations. Mineral loss was evaluated in these specimens using the Knoop microhardness profiles in longitudinal sections at three different distances of the cavities and at eight distinct depths in relation to the external enamel surface. Statistical analysis of the results showed significant differences (p < 0.05) among the groups, although none of the study materials completely inhibited creation of the lesions. Vitremer demonstrated the best cariostatic action in intact bovine enamel. Ketac Molar, in intact or demineralized enamel, and Vitremer, in demineralized enamel, presented intermediate cariostatic potential. Z-250 and Dyract AP did not demonstrate any cariostatic effect. The data suggests that glass ionomer cements demonstrated better cariostatic action compared to the other restorative materials.     

A two-year comparison of resin-based composite tunnel and Class II restorations in a randomized controlled trial

PURPOSE: To evaluate the performance of total tunnel restoration with resin-based composites compared to Class II resin-based composite restorations in a randomized controlled clinical study. METHODS: 63 approximal carious lesions were restored in 38 patients by two experienced operators. The carious dentin and approximal demineralized enamel were completely removed for the tunnel restoration leaving the marginal ridge intact. The occlusal opening was enlarged to the center of the tooth to make access easy. Conservative cavity preparation was performed for the Class II restorations. All cavities were restored with Scotchbond Multipurpose Plus and Z250. At baseline, 1- and 2-year recalls, the restorations were evaluated clinically by two examiners using a modified USPHS rating system and radiographically for recurrent, caries. RESULTS: Both types of restorations performed well clinically, and there was no significant difference (P> 0.05) by the chi square test in any category. Recurrent caries was not detected. Only one tunnel restoration had to be replaced with a Class II restoration because of falling of the restoration with the marginal ridge after 2 years. However, no significant difference in the survival rates (P> 0.05) could be demonstrated between the restorations by the log-rank test.     

Evaluating the effects of fluoride-releasing dental materials on adjacent interproximal caries.

BACKGROUND: The authors examined several restorative materials to evaluate their ability to inhibit demineralization and enhance remineralization of incipient carious lesions on the interproximal enamel of teeth adjacent to those restored with the materials. METHODS: Twenty-one subjects in need of a crown on a mandibular molar and a Class II inlay on an adjacent tooth took part in this six-phase study. Artificial enamel lesions were created and positioned within the interproximal portion of a crown. Lesions were photographed with polarized light microscopy and characterized before and after 30-day intraoral exposures. Each phase included the placement of a new section in the crown model and a new Class II inlay restorative material in the adjacent tooth. RESULTS: Results demonstrated that nonfluoridated resin composite, fluoridated resin composite and resin-modified glass ionomer restorative materials, when placed in subjects who brushed with a fluoridated dentifrice, demonstrated significantly (P < .05) less enamel demineralization than the nonfluoridated resin composite control placed in subjects who brushed with a nonfluoridated dentifrice. The resin-modified glass ionomer cement, however, even when brushed with a nonfluoridated dentifrice, exhibited significantly (P < .05) less demineralization than the nonfluoridated resin composite control brushed with a nonfluoridated dentifrice. CONCLUSIONS: Resin-modified glass ionomer cement appears to significantly inhibit demineralization of interproximal enamel of teeth adjacent to those restored with the material. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: Resin-modified glass ionomer cement restorations can enhance prevention of enamel demineralization on adjacent teeth.     

Remineralizing effects of glass ionomer restorations on adjacent interproximal caries

The purpose of this study was to examine the in vitro remineralization of incipient caries lesions on teeth adjacent interproximally to teeth with Class II glass ionomer cement restorations. Sixty-four extracted molars were selected and 1 x 5 mm artificial caries lesions were created at the interproximal contact point. One hundred micrometer sections were obtained at the caries sites, and polarized-light photomicrographs were obtained. The sections were covered with varnish, leaving only the external section site exposed, and were placed back into the original tooth. In another sixty-four molars, Class II cavities were prepared. Equal numbers of preparations were filled with Fuji IX GP, Vitremer, Ketac-Molar, or Z 250. These sixty-four teeth were mounted to have interproximal contact with the adjacent teeth containing the artificial caries lesions. Specimens were placed in closed environments of artificial saliva for one month. After thirty days, the same sections were photographed again under polarized light, and areas of the lesions were quantitated. Decrease in the size of caries lesions indicated the glass ionomers had significantly greater remineralization effects on adjacent caries than the nonfluoridated composite resin (ANOVA p < 0.05). There were no significant differences among the three glass ionomers tested.     

Resin-modified glass-ionomer restorations and in vitro secondary caries formation in coronal enamel.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this laboratory study was to compare the effects of a resin-modified glass ionomer and a resin composite restorative material on secondary caries formation in coronal enamel. METHOD AND MATERIALS: Twelve caries-free molars were sectioned into tooth quarters. Coronal cavities were prepared and then restored with either a resin-modified glass-ionomer material (mesiobuccal and mesiolingual tooth quarters), or a resin composite (distobuccal and distolingual tooth quarters). Caries like lesions were created, and secondary caries was examined by polarized light microscopy following lesion initiation and progression periods. RESULTS: The resin-modified glass-ionomer specimens had significantly shallower primary surface lesions at both the lesion initiation (35% shallower) and progression (45% shallower) periods than did the resin composite specimens. There were significantly fewer wall lesions (3-fold and 2-fold fewer following lesion initiation and progression, respectively) in the resin-modified glass-ionomer group than in the resin composite group. CONCLUSION: Resin-modified glass-ionomer restorations reduce the susceptibility of unrestored adjacent enamel surfaces and cavosurfaces to a constant cariogenic challenge. The caries resistance imparted to the surface enamel and cavosurface is most likely due to the fluoride release from the resin-modified glass-ionomer material.     

Artificial recurrent caries in glass ionomer-lined amalgam restorations

The purpose of this study was to examine artificial recurrent caries when a conventional glass ionomer liner was placed under amalgam restorations. An additional aim was to evaluate the effect of using an unfilled resin with or without etching on the margins of the amalgam restoration. Class V preparations in extracted third molars were used with gingival margins on root surfaces. Ten restorations were used for each of the following groups: 1) Amalgam alone; 2) Two layers of copal varnish and amalgam; 3) Glass ionomer, amalgam; 4) Glass ionomer, amalgam, unfilled resin; 5) Glass ionomer, amalgam, acid-etching, unfilled resin. The teeth were thermocycled and artificial caries were created using a liquid system acidified to pH 4.10 and saturated with HAP but without fluoride. The teeth were sectioned, polished and photographed using polarized light. Areas of recurrent caries were measured using a sonic digitizing pad. The data were analyzed using ANOVA and Duncan's Multiple Range Test. Areas for enamel lesions for the different groups were: 1) 1.29 +/- 0.41; 2) 1.61 +/- 0.49; 3) 0.92 +/- 0.26; 4) 0.87 +/- 0.31; 5) 0.99 +/- 0.39. Root lesions areas were: 1) 2.17 +/- 0.35; 2) 1.90 +/- 0.40; 3) 1.40 +/- 0.27; 4) 0.82 +/- 0.25; 5) 1.34 +/- 0.31. Duncan's groups for root lesions were A = B/ C = D/ and E separately. This study indicates that artificial recurrent caries under amalgam can be reduced with a conventional glass ionomer. An additional benefit was observed when unfilled resin was placed on the cavosurface margins but not when it was acid-etched first.     

Inhibition of artificial secondary caries in root by fluoride-releasing restorative materials

This investigation evaluated the fluoride-releasing properties of various fluoride-releasing restorative materials, including resin-modified glass-ionomer cements (Fuji ionomer TypeII LC, Photac-Fil Aplicap, Vitremer), compomers (Ionosit FIL, Compoglass, Dyract) and fluoride-releasing resin composites (Heliomolar radiopaque, Degufill mineral). The study also estimated the effects of those materials on the inhibition of artificial secondary caries around restorations using a bacterial caries-inducing system. The amount of fluoride released from the materials in deionized water was measured every one week for 10 weeks. Class V cavities with the gingival margin located in the root were prepared in extracted human premolars and restored with each of the materials. The restored teeth were incubated in the bacterial artificial caries chamber, and the artificial lesion created around the restoration was observed microradiographically. The resin-modified glass-ionomer cements released the largest amount of fluoride and created a thick radio-opaque zone in the artificial lesion along the restoration-dentin interface. These results indicated that the fluoride-releasing restorative materials have the potential to inhibit secondary caries formation around restorations. Resin-modified glass-ionomer cements presented a particularly strong effect, compared with compomers and fluoride-releasing resin composites.     

ART restorations and glass ionomer sealants in Zimbabwe: survival after 3 years

Atraumatic restorative treatment (ART) consists of removing demineralised tooth tissues with hand instruments only, restoring the prepared cavity and sealing the adjacent pits and fissures with an adhesive filling material. This relatively painless, no-handpiece, minimal intervention approach to controlling dental caries is described. ART was applied in an oral health care programme in Zimbabwe that was carried out amongst secondary school students from 1994 to 1997. A new glass ionomer (Fuji IX) was used as the restorative and sealant material. Sealants were placed in high caries risk students using the ‘press-finger’ technique. A total of 297 one-surface ART restorations and 95 glass ionomer sealants were placed in 142 and 66 students, respectively. After 3 years, the lost-to-follow-up percentages for one-surface ART restorations and glass ionomer sealants were 30.6% and 30.5%, respectively. Actuarial (life table) analysis resulted in 3-year survival rates of one-surface ART restorations of 88.3% (95% CI: 92.4%–84.2%), ranging from 94.3% to 65.4% per operator. A total of 28 ART restorations placed in 25 students failed. Reasons for failure related to the material and the operator (11 restorations or 5.3% each), and to caries adjacent to the restoration (one restoration or 0.5%). Reasons for failure were not recorded for five restorations (2.3%). Seal-ants were placed on surfaces diagnosed as early enamel lesions. After 3 years, 71.4% (95% CI: 81.7%–61.1%) of the fully and partially retained sealants survived with a range of 100% to 55.6% per operator. Of the sealed surfaces 96.3% (95% CI: 100%–92.2%) survived 3 years without developing caries. Experienced operators placed better ART restorations than inexperienced operators. This study has demonstrated that ART with a glass ionomer restorative material and sealants provided high quality preventive and restorative dental care to this student population. ART has become one of the treatment modalities available to oral health workers in managing dental caries.     

The two-year clinical performance of esthetic restorative materials in noncarious cervical lesions

BACKGROUND: Materials used in restoration of cervical lesions include resin-modified glass ionomer cements, polyacid-modified resin-based composites and resin-based composites. In this study, the authors evaluated the clinical performance of these materials over a two-year period. METHODS: Thirty patients were enrolled in this study. The authors placed in these patients 130 restorations, 24 of which were Vitremer (3M Dental Products, St. Paul, Minn.), 38 were F2000 Compomer (3M Dental Products), 46 were Dyract AP (Dentsply DeTrey, Konstanz, Germany) and 22 were Valux Plus (3M Dental Products). Enamel margins were not beveled, and no mechanical retention was placed. Two independent, calibrated examiners evaluated the restorations baseline and at one and two years after placement using modified U.S. Public Health Service criteria. RESULTS: Retention rates at the end of two years were 100 percent for Vitremer, 67 percent for F2000 Compomer, 68 percent for Dyract AP and 70 percent for Valux Plus. The retention rate of Vitremer was significantly higher than that of the others (P < .05). In other categories, however, Valux Plus had the most favorable performance (P < .05). No secondary caries was detected around any restoration. CONCLUSION: Vitremer, with its high retention rate, seems to be the most appropriate material for restoration of noncarious cervical lesions, though it does not have the esthetic properties of resin-based composites. All materials used in this study were in need of improvements. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: Resin-modified glass ionomer cement, polyacid-modified resin-based composite and resin-based composite behaved differently in the restoration of noncarious cervical lesions. Therefore, clinicians should take factors such as esthetic needs and localization into account in selecting materials for such restorations.     

One-year clinical evaluation of tooth-colored materials in non-carious cervical lesions

The purpose of this study was to assess the clinical performance of bonded composite (Excite/Tetric Ceram - Vivadent) versus a resin-modified glass ionomer cement (Vitremer - 3M) for restoring non-carious cervical lesions. A total of 70 restorations (thirty-five per material) were placed in 30 patients, 18-50 aged, by one operator. Rubber dam was employed in all cases, lesions were pumiced, enamel margins were not beveled, and no mechanical retention was placed. The restorations were directly assessed by two independent evaluators using modified-USPHS criteria for six clinical categories. The ratings for clinical acceptability restorations (alfa plus bravo) were as follows (Tetric Ceram/Vitremer): retention (86%/100%), marginal integrity (100%/100%), marginal discoloration (100%/100%), wear (97%/100%), postoperative sensitivity (100%/100%) and recurrent caries (100%/100%). Statistical analysis was completed with Fisher's exact or Pearson Chi-square tests at a significance level of 5% (P<0.05). Results showed that almost all restorations were clinically satisfactory with no significant differences between materials groups. Five restorations of Excite/Tetric Ceram failed. No restorations of Vitremer have yet failed.