Clinical performance of resin-modified glass ionomer cement, flowable composite, and polyacid-modified resin composite in noncarious cervical lesions: One-year follow-up

Syed Nazia Hussainy; Iffat Nasim; Toby Thomas; Manish Ranjan

doi:10.4103/JCD.JCD_51_18

Clinical performance of resin-modified glass ionomer cement, flowable composite, and polyacid-modified resin composite in noncarious cervical lesions: One-year follow-up

J Conserv Dent. 2018 Sep-Oct;21(5):510-515. doi: 10.4103/JCD.JCD_51_18.

Authors

Syed Nazia Hussainy¹, Iffat Nasim¹, Toby Thomas¹, Manish Ranjan¹

Affiliation

¹ Department of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, Saveetha Dental College, Saveetha Institute of Medical and Technical Sciences, Saveetha University, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India.

Abstract

Background: The restoration of noncarious cervical lesions (NCCLs) often poses a challenge to the clinician. Various restorative materials are available in the market for the restoration of the same. Each material has various advantages and shortcomings.

Aim: The aim of this study was to compare and to evaluate the clinical performance of capsulated resin-modified glass ionomer cement (RMGIC), flowable composite, and polyacid-modified composite resin (PMCR) in NCCLs.

Materials and methods: A total of 101 restorations were placed among healthy controls in this clinical trial. A total of 101 restorations were divided into three groups with n = minimum 32 per group (Group 1: 33 restorations, Group 2: 34 restorations, and Group 3: 34 restorations). The restorative materials used were capsulated RMGIC, flowable composite and PMCR. After the placement, the restorations were evaluated for the United States Public Health Services criteria for six parameters, namely retention, marginal adaptation, marginal discoloration, color stability, surface roughness, and sensitivity. The restorations were evaluated at baseline, 6 and 12 months.

Statistical analysis: Statistics was performed using SPSS 21.0 version. Chi-square test was done to compare the proportions between groups. Fisher's exact test was used to compare proportion change between time points.

Results: There was no statistically significant difference seen among the three groups for retention, color stability, surface roughness, and hypersensitivity. RMGIC had shown superior characteristics in marginal adaptation and marginal discoloration compared to flowable composite and PMCR, and the difference was statistically significant.

Conclusion: Within the limitations of this study, all the three restorative materials are clinically acceptable for the restoration of NCCLs. RMGIC is superior regarding marginal adaptation and esthetics for restoring NCCLs.

Keywords: Flowable composites; United States Public Health Services criteria; noncarious cervical lesions; polyacid-modified composite resins; resin-modified glass ionomer cement.