International Journal of Clinical Pediatric Dentistry

Register      Login

VOLUME 16 , ISSUE 6 ( November-December, 2023 ) > List of Articles

ORIGINAL RESEARCH

Clinical and Radiographic Evaluation of Different Glass Ionomer Restorative Materials in Primary Molars: A Comparative Randomized Clinical Trial

Vishakha G Kataria, Megha C Patel, Rohan Bhatt, 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, Bhatt R, 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.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10005-2709

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 01-02-2024

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2023; The Author(s).


Abstract

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.


PDF Share
  1. Davidson CL. Advances in glass-ionomer cements. J Appl Oral Sci 2006;14:3–9. DOI: 10.1590/s1678-77572006000700002
  2. Lohbauer U. Dental glass ionomer cements as permanent filling materials? —Properties, limitations future trends. Materials 2010;3(1):76–96. DOI: 10.3390/ma3010076
  3. 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
  4. 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
  5. 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).
  6. 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
  7. 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
  8. Todd JC. Scientific documentation: Cention N. Schaan, Liechtenstein: Ivoclar Vivadent Press; 2016.
  9. 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.
  10. 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
  11. 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
  12. 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).
  13. 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
  14. 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
  15. 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
  16. 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
  17. 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
  18. 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
  19. 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
  20. Sidhu SK, Nicholson JW. A review of glass-ionomer cements for clinical dentistry. J Funct Biomater 2016;7(3):16. DOI: 10.3390/jfb7030016
  21. 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
  22. George P, Bhandary S. A comparative microleakage analysis of a newer restorative material – an exvivo study. IOSR J Dent Med Sci 2018;17(12).
  23. 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
  24. 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
  25. 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
  26. 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.
  27. 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
  28. 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.
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.