Aim: The aim of this study was to clinically compare glass ionomer cement (GIC) with microhybrid composite resin used in class I cavities on permanent teeth over a period of 9 months.
Materials and methods: A total of 40 teeth with class I cavities were divided into two groups (n = 20) and restored with GIC (EQUIA; GC) and microhybrid resin composite (Amelogen Plus; Ultradent). Restorations were evaluated at ×4.5 magnification using the United States Public Health Service (USPHS) criteria every 3 months. Statistical analysis was performed using the Fisher's exact test (a < 0.05).
Results: The data obtained reported no statistical significance difference between both groups in regard to anatomical shape, color, postoperative sensitivity, secondary caries, material handling, adaptation, and marginal staining.
Conclusion: The results of this clinical study showed that GIC (EQUIA; GC) can be used for the restoration of permanent teeth and may be more appropriate for certain clinical situations than the resin composite material.
Clinical significance: EQUIA (GIC) is a viable alternative to resin composite in restoring class I cavities in permanent teeth.
Keywords: Class I; Clinical; Composite; Glass ionomer Permanent teeth..