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.     

Clinical performance of resin-modified glass ionomer cement restorations in primary teeth. A retrospective evaluation

BACKGROUND: The authors retrospectively evaluated the clinical performance of one resin-modified glass ionomer cement as a restorative material in Class I, Class II, Class III and Class V restorations in primary teeth. METHODS: A total of 306 patients who had received a total of 864 resin-modified glass ionomer restorations, which had been in their mouths for a minimum of three years, were included in this evaluation. The authors assessed the clinical observations recorded in patients' records and used bitewing radiographs to assess Class II restorations. RESULTS: The authors found an overall restoration success rate of 93.0 percent, with Class I restorations having a 92.6 percent success rate, Class II restorations having a 93.3 percent success rate, Class III restorations having a 100 percent success rate, and Class V restorations having a 98.0 percent success rate. CONCLUSIONS: The resin-modified glass ionomer cement functioned well as a Class I, Class II, Class III and Class V restorative material in primary teeth. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: Resin-modified glass ionomer restorative cement is a durable and reliable material to use for Class I, Class II, Class III and Class V restorations in primary teeth. Therefore, dentists have a proven alternative to silver amalgam and resin-based composite for primary tooth restoration.     

Five-year study of Class II restorations in permanent teeth using amalgam, glass polyalkenoate (ionomer) cermet and resin-based composite materials

The aim of this study was to compare the clinical performance of an amalgam, a glass polyalkenoate (ionomer) cermet material and a resin-based composite material used in small Class II cavities in permanent teeth. All restorations were inserted under rubber dam. They were examined yearly for 3 years. One clinician continued the study up to 5 years. The clinical examination focused on two criteria: clinically acceptable and failure. In addition, impressions were taken of the prepared cavities immediately before restoration and at each clinical examination using an elastomeric material. The study comprised 274 Class II restorations (88 amalgams, 95 cermets and 91 resin composites) placed in 142 adolescent patients. One hundred and sixty-seven restorations were in molar and 107 in premolar teeth. Patient dropout after 5 years resulted in the loss of 161 restorations, evenly distributed for restorative material and type of tooth involved. Four amalgam restorations, 22 glass ionomer cermet and nine resin composite restorations failed. The glass ionomer cermet and amalgam restorations failed primarily due to bulk fractures, while the resin composite restorations failed due to secondary caries and bulk fractures.     

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.     

Resin-modified and conventional glass ionomer restorations in primary teeth: 8-year results

OBJECTIVES: To compare the longevity and cariostatic effects of resin-modified (RMGIC) and conventional glass ionomer (GIC) restorations in primary teeth in the Danish Public Dental Health Service. METHODS: The sample consisted of 543 RMGIC and 451 GIC restorations in all cavity types in the primary teeth of 640 children, aged 3.0-17.5 years. The restorations were in contact with 480 unrestored surfaces. The restorations and the adjacent surfaces were followed until exfoliation/extraction of the teeth, repair/replacement of restorations or operative treatment of adjacent surfaces. Survival analyses supplied with multivariate analyses were performed to assess the influence of different factors on the longevity of restorations, occurrence of prevalent failures, and caries treatment of adjacent surfaces. RESULTS: After 8 years, 2% of the restorations were still in function and 37% of the RMGIC and 44% of the GIC restorations had been repaired or replaced. Fracture and loss of retention predominated as the reasons for failure of restorations in both materials. The 50% survival time for restorations was 55 months for RMGIC and 48 months for GIC (p = 0.01). Progression of caries lesions required operative treatment on 20% of the surfaces in contact with RMGIC and on 14% of surfaces adjacent to GIC restorations. The 75% survival time was 35 months for surfaces in contact with both materials (p = 0.37). CONCLUSIONS: RMGIC and GIC showed similar cariostatic effects on restored teeth and adjacent tooth surfaces, but RMGIC should be preferred for class II restorations in the primary dentition, and class III/V restorations should be made in GIC due to enhanced longevity.     

Class II restorations in primary teeth: 7-year study on three resin-modified glass ionomer cements and a compomer

The aim of this randomized study was to compare the longevity and cariostatic effects of 1565 class II restorations in primary teeth placed by 15 clinicians in the Danish Public Dental Health Service in 971 children, aged 3.6-14.9 yr. The restorations were performed using three resin-modified glass ionomer cements and one compomer (polyacid-modified composite resin) with and without their respective cavity conditioners. The restorations were in contact with 1023 unrestored proximal surfaces in 853 primary and 170 permanent teeth. The study was terminated after 7 yr with 1% of the restorations in function, 7% patient dropouts, 18% failed restorations, and operative treatment on 24% of the adjacent surfaces. Multivariate survival analyses showed that the restorative material and cavity conditioning influenced the survival of restorations but not the progression of caries on adjacent surfaces. The 50% survival times were estimated to exceed 5 yr for the restorations and 4.5 yr for the adjacent unfilled surfaces in all treatment groups. It was concluded that resin-modified glass ionomer cement and compomer are both appropriate materials for class II restorations in primary teeth. The differences in longevity and cariostatic effects among the four materials used with and without conditioner were less than the intra-individual differences between clinicians.     

Class II glass ionomer/silver cermet restorations and their effect on interproximal growth of mutans streptococci

The release of fluoride from glass ionomer materials is one of the most important features of this newly implemented material, and the remineralization effects of this phenomenon have been documented (Hicks and Silverstone 1986). This paper examines the effects of glass ionomer/silver cermet restorations on the plaque levels of interproximal mutans streptococci. Fifteen patients with Class II lesions in primary molars were selected for study. Interproximal plaque samples were obtained from each of the lesion sites and from one caries-free site approximal to a primary molar. One lesion was restored with composite resin to serve as a treated control to the glass ionomer/silver cermet (Ketac Silver, ESPE/Premier Sales Corp., Norristown, Pennsylvania) test site. A sound (unaltered) interproximal site served as the untreated control site. Plaque samples were collected before and at one week, one month, and three months post-treatment. Samples were serially diluted to enable colony counts of mutans streptococci. One week post-treatment counts showed that the glass ionomer/silver cermet restorations significantly reduced (P less than 0.05) the approximal plaque levels of mutans streptococci. Conversely, the untreated and treated control sites did not exhibit reductions in approximal plaque levels of mutans streptococci. These results indicate that glass ionomer restorations may be inhibitory to the growth of mutans streptococci in dental plaque approximal to this restorative material in the primary dentition.     

Compomers as Class II restorations in primary molars

A variety of alternatives to amalgam are now available for use in class II restorations in primary teeth, including glass ionomer, composites, and intermediate materials such as compomer and resin modified glass ionomers (RMGI). The purpose of the present study was to evaluate the clinical performance of two compomers, Hytac and Dyract, and to compare these results to those reported for other intracoronal restorative materials. Evaluation after 24 months shows Hytac and Dyract to have performed well and comparably as class II restorations in primary teeth. The low failure rate, even in a population with a high caries increment, suggests that compomers are a suitable alternative to amalgam or other, tooth-colored materials when used as class II restorations in primary teeth.     

Clinical evaluation of glass ionomer-silver cermet restorations in primary molars: one year results

Using the half mouth technique, 33 silver amalgam (Dispersalloy) and 40 glass ionomer (Ketec silver) restorations were placed in the primary molars of children aged five to seven years. After one year, 73 restorations were evaluated. The amalgam restorations rated 90-100 per cent alpha for anatomic form and margins with no recurrent caries or fractures. The glass ionomer restorations rated 35 to 55 per cent alpha for anatomic form and margins with 40 per cent being replaced due to fracture of the material. Within the guidelines of this study, glass ionomer silver cermet was not a suitable material for the restoration of interproximal cavities in primary molars.     

In vitro caries-inhibitory properties of a silver cermet

Recurrent caries is one of the primary causes of failure of dental restorations. One method for reducing the frequency and severity of this problem is the use of fluoride-releasing restorative materials. The glass-ionomer cements are a type of fluoride-releasing material. They have been used extensively in recent years for a variety of clinical applications. However, in comparison with other restorative materials such as amalgam and composite resins, glass ionomers have relatively poor physical properties. Sintering of silver particles to glass-ionomer powder is a means of improving these physical properties. The sintered material is called a silver-glass ionomer or silver cermet. This study examined the in vitro caries-inhibitory potential of a silver cement by means of two methods. First, long-term fluoride release was measured. Second, an artificial caries system was used for evaluation of caries inhibition by cerment restorations in extracted teeth. In comparison with a standard glass-ionomer restorative material, fluoride release from the cermet material was significantly less throughout a 12-month period. The results from the artificial caries system indicated that this decreased fluoride release corresponded with a lesser degree of caries inhibition. Lesions around cermet restorations in both enamel and root surfaces were significantly more severe than those around conventional glass-ionomer restorations. However, in comparison with amalgam and composite resin restorations, the cermet did have some cariostatic activity.     

Reasons for restorative therapy and the longevity of restorations in adults

The aim of this study was to obtain information on the restorative dental care of adults in Finland. A random sample of private dentists was drawn from the register, and in spring 2000 they were sent a questionnaire requesting them to record information for each restoration placed during one ordinary working day. A total of 800 dentists were contacted and 548 responded. The dentists reported placement of 3,455 restorations. Of these, 5% were Class I, 36% were Class II, 13% were Class III, 9% were Class IV, 21% were Class V, and 16% were extensive restorations including 4 or more surfaces. Overall, composite resin was the most common restorative material, and it was used in 79% of the restorations, whereas amalgam was used in 50%, compomers in 4%, and glass ionomers (either conventional or resin-modified) in 7% of cases. In 5%, of the cases, the tooth was restored with indirect restorative methods, using either gold or ceramic materials. Of the treatments, 65% were replacements of previous restorations. Secondary caries was the most common reason for replacement (36%, 52%, and 41% for composite, glass ionomer, and amalgam, respectively). Other common reasons were fractures of the tooth or restoration (23%, 11%, and 22% for composite, glass ionomer, and amalgam, respectively) and lost composite restorations (16%). The median age of failed restorations was 15 years for amalgam, 6 years for composite, and 7 years for conventional glass ionomer. Although the longevity of tooth coloured restorations was shorter than that of amalgam, comparisons with our previous studies indicate improved survival periods for tooth coloured materials.     

Influence of different transitional restorations on the fracture resistance of premolar teeth

Controversy exists over the most favorable material and type of restoration to be used to transitionally restore teeth destined to be crowned. This in vitro study uses fracture resistance testing to compare eight different transitional restorations in maxillary premolars. Ninety sound maxillary premolars were randomly selected and allocated to nine groups, each comprising 10 teeth. One group remained unrestored and was used as the control. Teeth in the remaining groups were prepared to a standard cavity form using: a copy milling process removing the palatal cusp. Restorations were placed using amalgam with dentin pins and cavity varnish; amalgam with an amalgam bonding agent; resin composite with dentin pins and a dentin bonding agent; resin composite with a dentin bonding agent only; resin-modified glass ionomer with dentin pins; resin-modified glass ionomer cement alone and cermet with dentin pins and cermet alone. Each restored tooth was then subjected to axial loading via a bar contacting the buccal and restored palatal cusps until failure of the restored tooth occurred. The mean load-to-fracture values were statistically compared and the modes of failure recorded. It was found that the choice of restorative material and type of restoration had little effect on the fracture resistance of the restored tooth with the exception of those teeth restored with reinforced glass ionomer cement alone, which exhibited a significantly lower resistance to fracture than the other restored teeth. However, the choice of restorative material/technique did influence the mode of failure. Failure in teeth restored with resin-modified glass ionomer cement alone produced the least damage to the remaining tooth tissue when failure occurred. Consequently, this material may offer the most favorable range of properties for the transitional restoration of extensively broken-down maxillary premolar teeth destined to be crowned. Furthermore, the findings of this study fail to support the use of dentin pins in the placement of bonded build-up restorations.     

Direct materials for restoring caries lesions: Systematic review and meta-analysis—a report of the American Dental Association Council on Scientific Affairs

BackgroundThe goal of restoring caries lesions is to protect the pulp, prevent progression of the disease process, and restore the form and function of the tooth. The purpose of this systematic review was to determine the effect of different direct restorative materials for treating cavitated caries lesions on anterior and posterior primary and permanent teeth.Type of Studies ReviewedThe authors included parallel and split-mouth randomized controlled trials comparing the effectiveness of direct restorative materials commercially available in the United States placed in vital, nonendodontically treated primary and permanent teeth. Pairs of reviewers independently conducted study selection, data extraction, and assessments of risk of bias and certainty of the evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach. The authors conducted pair-wise meta-analyses to summarize the evidence and calculated measures of association and their 95% CIs.ResultsThirty-eight randomized controlled trials were eligible for analysis, which included data on Class I and Class II restorations on primary teeth and Class I, Class II, Class III, Class V, and root surface restorations on permanent teeth. Included studies assessed the effect of amalgam, resin composite, compomer, conventional glass ionomer cement, resin-modified glass ionomer cement, and preformed metal crowns. Moderate to very low certainty evidence suggested varying levels of effectiveness across restorative materials.Conclusions and Practical ImplicationsOwing to a relatively low event rate across various outcomes indicating restoration failure, there was limited evidence to support important differences between direct restorative materials used in practice.     

Effectiveness of a resin-modified glass ionomer liner in reducing hypersensitivity in posterior restorations: A study from the Practitioners Engaged in Applied Research and Learning Network

BackgroundThe objectives of this randomized comparative effectiveness study conducted by members of the Practitioners Engaged in Applied Research and Learning (PEARL) Network were to determine whether using a resin-modified glass ionomer (RMGI) liner reduces postoperative hypersensitivity (POH) in dentin-bonded Class I and Class II resin-based composite (RBC) restorations, as well as to identify other factors (putative risk factors) associated with increased POH.MethodsPEARL Network practitioner-investigators (P-Is) (n = 28) were trained to assess sensitivity determination, enamel and dentin caries activity rankings, evaluation for sleep bruxism, and materials and techniques used. The P-Is enrolled 341 participants who had hypersensitive posterior lesions. Participants were randomly assigned to receive an RBC restoration with or without an RMGI liner before P-Is applied a one-step, self-etching bonding agent. P-Is conducted sensitivity evaluations at baseline, at one and four weeks after treatment, and at all visits according to patient-reported outcomes.ResultsP-Is collected complete data regarding 347 restorations (339 participants) at baseline, with 341 (98 percent) (333 participants) recalled at four weeks. Treatment groups were balanced across baseline characteristics and measures. RBC restorations with or without an RMGI liner had the same one-week and four-week POH outcomes, as measured clinically (by means of cold or air stimulation) and according to patient-reported outcomes.ConclusionsUse of an RMGI liner did not reduce clinically measured or patient-reported POH in moderate-depth Class I and Class II restorations. Cold and air clinical stimulation findings were similar between groups.Practical Implications. The time, effort and expense involved in placing an RMGI liner in these moderate-depth RBC restorations may be unnecessary, as the representative liner used did not improve hypersensitivity outcomes.     

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.     

Direct placement restorative materials for use in posterior teeth: the current options

The purpose of this paper is to provide guidelines to assist in the selection of dental materials for restoring posterior teeth in adolescents. Currently, amalgam is still the best plastic restorative material for some Class I cavities, and for Class II cavities and all multi-surface restorations. Tooth-coloured materials are preferred by some patients and dentists, however these alternatives are more technique sensitive than amalgam. Composite resin is the most common direct placement alternative to dental amalgam, providing patients with relatively low cost, tooth-coloured restorations. However, composite resins have limited indication, their placement is more time-consuming than for amalgam, cost-benefit considerations are a concern, difficulty in obtaining a marginal seal persists and there are few long-term studies published in the peer reviewed scientific literature. The literature currently supports the use of composite resin for the restoration of a limited range of Class I and Class II cavities. Composite resin restorations are not recommended for MOD or other multi-surface restorations. In selected clinical situations, fissure sealants, preventive resin restorations and glass ionomer cement are also appropriate materials to use to restore posterior teeth. Fissure sealants, when properly maintained, can play a significant role in the prevention and control of dental caries in pits and fissures in primary and permanent teeth. Preventive resin restorations should be placed to restore deep pits and fissures with incipient caries and/or developmental defects in primary and permanent teeth. Glass ionomer cement may be used for restoring Class V cavities where appearance is not the primary concern, for conservative Class III cavities, and as a provisional restorative material. It is not recommended for Class II or IV restorations.     

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.     

Durability of cermet ionomer cement conditioned in different media.

The glass ionomer cement has exhibited significant adhesion to hard tooth structures, and good cariostatic properties. The sintering of the silver alloy powder and glass ionomer cement "cermet cement" has provided additional improvement in the physical properties of the restorative material. These were flexural resistance, wear resistance, increased radio-opacity, hardness and porosity. The improvement in the physical properties of the cermet glass cements has provided an extension in their clinical use as core build up, lining for inlays, amalgam and composite restoratives, fissure filling, restoration of primary teeth, class II tunnel preparation, treatment of root caries and repair of defective metal margins in crown and inlays.     

Effect of various surface protections on the margin microleakage of resin-modified glass ionomer cements

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: Because conventional glass ionomer cements are moisture sensitive, a surface coating is recommended during the initial setting stage. It is unknown whether resin-modified glass ionomer cements also need surface protection. PURPOSE: This study investigated the effect of various surface protections on microleakage with Class V resin-modified glass ionomer restorations. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Forty extracted molars with buccal and lingual Class V cavity preparations were restored with a resin-modified glass ionomer (Fuji II LC). The occlusal margin of each restoration was on enamel and the cervical margin on dentin. After immediate finishing and polishing, the teeth were divided into 4 groups according to the following surface protection treatments: group I, unprotected; group II, Fuji varnish; group III, resin adhesive; and group IV, acid etching and resin adhesive. After these procedures, all teeth were stored in isotonic saline for 24 hours, thermocycled 1500 times at 5 degrees C to 60 degrees C, and soaked in dye solution for 24 hours. The teeth then were longitudinally sectioned and observed under a stereomicroscope. The degree of dye penetration was recorded and analyzed with the Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney tests (P<.05) RESULTS: None of the 4 groups demonstrated complete margin sealing at either the occlusal or cervical margins. Groups II and III displayed the least microleakage at cervical margins; a significant difference existed between groups I and III (P=.034). Compared with the other 3 groups, group IV showed significantly greater microleakage at the cervical margins. CONCLUSION: Although resin-modified glass ionomers can be finished immediately, they remain moisture sensitive. Within the limitations of this study, the results suggest that resin adhesive should be used as a surface protection to reduce margin microleakage of resin-modified glass ionomer restorations.     

Effect of smear layer on root demineralization adjacent to resin-modified glass ionomer

The cariostatic effect of resin-modified glass ionomer (RMGI) on secondary root caries is well-documented. However, this beneficial effect may be dependent upon the mode of cavity surface treatment. To investigate this relationship, we studied 4 cavity surface treatments prior to the placement of RMGI: no treatment (None), polyacrylic acid (PAA), phosphoric acid (H(3)PO(4)), and Scotchbond Multi-Purpose adhesive (SMP) as a control. Specimens were aged for two weeks in synthetic saliva, thermocycled, and subjected to an artificial caries challenge (pH 4.4). Polarized light microscopy (PLM) and microradiography (MRG) showed significantly less demineralization with the H(3)PO(4) cavity surface treatment as revealed by ANOVA and Tukey's multiple comparisons (p < or = 0.05). Dentin fluoride profiles determined by electron probe microanalysis (EPMA) supported PLM and MRG findings. It may be concluded that removal of the smear layer with phosphoric acid provides significantly enhanced resistance to secondary root caries formation adjacent to RMGI restorations.