Clinical and Radiographic Evaluation of Different Glass Ionomer Restorative Materials in Primary Molars: A Comparative Randomized Clinical Trial
Vishakha G Kataria, Megha C Patel, Foram C Patel, Disha G Makwani, Kaushal Joshi
Keywords :
Dental restoration, Glass ionomer cement, Primary Teeth, Randomized controlled trial, United States Public Health Service, Cention N
Citation Information :
Kataria VG, Patel MC, Patel FC, Makwani DG, Joshi K. Clinical and Radiographic Evaluation of Different Glass Ionomer Restorative Materials in Primary Molars: A Comparative Randomized Clinical Trial. Int J Clin Pediatr Dent 2023; 16 (6):829-836.
Aim: The study aimed to evaluate and compare the clinical and radiographic success rate of Ketac Universal (3M), GC 9 EXTRA (GC), and Cention N (Ivoclar) restorative materials in primary molars.
Materials and methods: The study was conducted as randomized clinical trial in children aged 3–8 years old, out of which a total of 75 primary molars were selected in 43 patients who met the inclusion criteria. The sample size was further divided into three groups of restorative materials, which included group I—Ketac Universal (n = 25), group II—GC 9 EXTRA (n = 25), and group III—Cention N (n = 25). Class I restorations were placed randomly according to the computerized randomization in primary molars and evaluated at baseline (1 week), 6 months, and 12 months according to modified United States Public Health Service (USPHS) criteria and bitewing radiographs.
Results: On intercomparison of three groups at 12 months, there was no significant difference found, while on pairwise comparison of Ketac Universal and Cention N, there was a significant difference in relation to surface texture (p = 0.04*) and anatomic contour (p = 0.04*) at 12 months.
Conclusion: Newly introduced restorative material Cention N exhibited improved physical and mechanical properties and can be recommended as a cost-effective restorative and easy-to-use material in posterior load-bearing primary molars.
Clinical significance: Restoration of primary teeth continues to be an important aspect of restorative dentistry. The longevity of restorations in primary teeth is significantly different for all materials compared to permanent dentition. This makes the assessment of these restorations as a separate group meaningful.
Lohbauer U. Dental glass ionomer cements as permanent filling materials? —Properties, limitations future trends. Materials 2010;3(1):76–96. DOI: 10.3390/ma3010076
Wilson AD, Kent BE. A new translucent cement for dentistry. The glass ionomer cement. Br Dent J 1972;132(4):133–135. DOI: 10.1038/sj.bdj.4802810
Pascon FM, Kantovitz KR, Caldo-Teixeira AS, et al. Clinical evaluation of composite and compomer restorations in primary teeth: 24-month results. J Dent 2006;34(6):381–388. DOI: 10.1016/j.jdent.2005.08.003
Samanta S, Das UK, Mitra A. Comparison of microleakage in class V cavity restored with flowable composite resin, glass ionomer cement and Cention N. Imp J Interdiscip Res 2017;3(8).
Walia R, Jasuja P, Verma KG, et al. A comparative evaluation of microleakage and compressive strength of Ketac Molar, Giomer, Zirconomer, and Ceram-x: an in vitro study. J Indian Soc Pedod Prev Dent 2016;34(3):280–284. DOI: 10.4103/0970-4388.186746
Rutar J, McAllan L, Tyas MJ. Three-year clinical performance of glass ionomer cement in primary molars. Int J Paediatr Dent 2002;12(2):146–147. DOI: 10.1046/j.1365-263x.2002.00339.x
Sadananda V, Shetty C, Hegde MN, et al. Alkasite restorative material: flexural and compressive strength evaluation. Res J Pharm Biol Chem Sci 2018;9(5):2179.
Daou MH, Tavernier B, Meyer JM. Two-year clinical evaluation of three restorative materials in primary molars. J Clin Pediatr Dent 2009;34(1):53–58. DOI: 10.17796/jcpd.34.1.h4p6141065388h0h
Onal B, Pamir T. The two-year clinical performance of esthetic restorative materials in noncarious cervical lesions. J Am Dent Assoc 2005;136(11):1547–1555. DOI: 10.14219/jada.archive.2005.0085
Dedania MS, Shah NC, Bhadra D, et al. One year comparative evaluation of clinical performance of silver amalgam and cention-n in simple class i carious lesions in permanent molars – a split mouth randomized clinical study. Int J Curr Res 2018;10(8).
Welbury RR, Shaw AJ, Murray J, et al. Clinical evaluation of paired compomer and glass ionomer restorations in primary molars: final results after 42 months. Br Dent J 2000;189(2):93–97. DOI: 10.1038/sj.bdj.4800693
Dodiya PV, Parekh V, Gupta MS, et al. Clinical evaluation of Cention–N and nano hybrid composite resin as a restoration of noncarious cervical lesion. J Dent Specialities 2019;7(1):3–5. DOI: 10.18231/j.jds.2019.001
Qvist V, Laurberg L, Poulsen A, et al. Longevity and cariostatic effects of everyday conventional glass-ionomer and amalgam restorations in primary teeth: three-year results. J Dent Res 1997;76(7):1387–1396. DOI: 10.1177/00220345970760070901
Mohan Das U, Viswanath D, Azher U. Clinical evaluation of resin composite and resin modified glass ionomer in class III restorations of primary maxillary incisors: a comparative in vivo study. Int J Clin Pediatr Dent 2009;2(2):13–19. DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10005-1024
Mahmoud SH, El-Embaby AE, AbdAllah AM. Clinical performance of ormocer, nanofilled, and nanoceramic resin composites in Class I and Class II restorations: a three-year evaluation. Oper Dent 2014;39(1):32–42. DOI: 10.2341/12-313-C
Hamida DMA, Mahmoud GM, El-Sharkawy FM, et al. Effect of surface protection, staining beverages and aging on the color stability and hardness of recently introduced uncoated glass ionomer restorative material. Futur Dent J 2018;4:288–296. DOI: 10.1016/j.fdj.2018.05.004
Wang XY, Yap AU, Ngo HC. Effect of early water exposure on the strength of glass ionomer restoratives. Oper Dent 2006;31(5):584–589. DOI: 10.2341/05-106
Sidhu SK, Nicholson JW. A review of glass-ionomer cements for clinical dentistry. J Funct Biomater 2016;7(3):16. DOI: 10.3390/jfb7030016
Singla T, Pandit IK, Srivastava N, et al. An evaluation of microleakage of various glass ionomer based restorative materials in deciduous and permanent teeth: an in vitro study. Saudi Dent J 2012;24(1):35–42. DOI: 10.1016/j.sdentj.2011.10.002
George P, Bhandary S. A comparative microleakage analysis of a newer restorative material – an exvivo study. IOSR J Dent Med Sci 2018;17(12).
Mazumdar P, Das A, Guha C. Comparative evaluation of hardness of different restorative materials (Restorative Gic, Cention N, nanohybrid composite resin and silver amalgam) – an in vitro study. Int J Adv Res 2018;6(3):826–832. DOI: 10.21474/IJAR01/6737
Mazumdar P, Das A, Das UK. Comparative evaluation of microleakage of three different direct restorative materials (silver amalgam, glass ionomer cement, Cention N), in class II restorations using stereomicroscope: an in vitro study. Indian J Dent Res 2019;30(2):277–281. DOI: 10.4103/ijdr.IJDR_481_17
Yu C, Gao XJ, Deng DM, et al. Survival of glass ionomer restorations placed in primary molars using atraumatic restorative treatment (ART) and conventional cavity preparations: 2-year results. Int Dent J 2004;54(1):42–46. DOI: 10.1111/j.1875-595x.2004.tb00251.x
Kaur M, Mann NS, Jhamb A, et al. A comparative evaluation of compressive strength of Cention N with glass ionomer cement: an in-vitro study. Int J Appl Dent Sci 2019;5(1):05–09.
Gupta N, Jaiswal S, Nikhil V, et al. Comparison of fluoride ion release and alkalizing potential of a new bulk-fill alkasite. J Conserv Dent 2019;22(3):296–299. DOI: 10.4103/JCD.JCD_74_19
Vaghela L, Patel MC, Valera BR, et al. Evaluation of shear bond strength of composite resin with Vitrebond and TheraCal using two different adhesive system - an in vitro study. IOSR J Dent Med Sci 2020;19(8):29–34.
