International Journal of Clinical Pediatric Dentistry

Register      Login

VOLUME 17 , ISSUE 2 ( February, 2024 ) > List of Articles

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW

Clinical Effectiveness of High-viscosity Glass Ionomer Cement and Composite Resin as a Restorative Material in Primary Teeth: A Systematic Review of Clinical Trials

Karthika Krishnakumar, Ritesh Kalaskar, Ashita Kalaskar, Shivani Bhadule, Suyash Joshi

Keywords : Clinical effectiveness, Composite resin, High-viscosity glass ionomer, Primary teeth, Systematic review

Citation Information : Krishnakumar K, Kalaskar R, Kalaskar A, Bhadule S, Joshi S. Clinical Effectiveness of High-viscosity Glass Ionomer Cement and Composite Resin as a Restorative Material in Primary Teeth: A Systematic Review of Clinical Trials. Int J Clin Pediatr Dent 2024; 17 (2):221-228.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10005-2757

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 22-04-2024

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2024; The Author(s).


Abstract

Aim: This systematic review was designed to compare the clinical effectiveness of high-viscosity glass ionomer cement (HVGIC) restorations to direct composite resin (CR) restorations in single- or multisurface cavities in primary teeth. Background: Restorative procedures are typically used to treat caries in primary teeth. Due to their improved preservation of the natural tooth structure and their adhesion to the remaining tooth structure, CR and GIC have drawn attention as the preferred restorative materials. In the literature, over the past 20 years, the term HVGIC has developed. Compared to C-GICs, HVGICs appear to have a higher survival rate. However, isolated studies provide contradictory findings regarding the durability of restorations in primary teeth. Materials and methods: Major electronic databases were thoroughly searched to find publications from the years 2000 to 2021. Studies included were randomized and nonrandomized clinical trials on children aged 3–13 years, in which restoration of primary teeth using HVGIC and CR was performed. Results: This systematic review includes four studies [three randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and one nonrandomized controlled trial]. No statistically significant difference between these materials was seen in any of the included studies. Conclusion: This systematic review of findings supports the assertion that both HVGIC and CR restorations deliver satisfactory outcomes in terms of clinical efficacy and overall survivability. It was found that, for both materials, class I restorations had statistically higher survival rates than class II restorations. Long-term studies are essential to evaluate the clinical efficacy of both restorations. Clinical significance: This systematic review outlines the application of HVGIC and CR as restorative materials for pediatric dentists to use in their everyday dental practices.


PDF Share
  1. Anil S, Anand PS. Early childhood caries: prevalence, risk factors, and prevention. Front Pediatr 2017;18(5):157. DOI: 10.3389/fped.2017.00157
  2. Mobley C, Marshall TA, Milgrom P, et al. The contribution of dietary factors to dental caries and disparities in caries. Acad Pediatr 2009;9(6):410–414. DOI: 10.1016/j.acap.2009.09.008
  3. Peres MA, Sheiham A, Liu P, et al. Sugar consumption and changes in dental caries from childhood to adolescence. J Dent Res 2016;95(4):388–394. DOI: 10.1177/0022034515625907
  4. Santamaria RM, Innes NP, Machiulskiene V, et al. Caries management strategies for primary molars: 1-yr randomized control trial results. J Dent Res 2014;93(11):1062–1069. DOI: 10.1177/0022034514550717
  5. Francisconi LF, Scaffa PM, de Barros VR, et al. Glass ionomer cements and their role in the restoration of non-carious cervical lesions. J Appl Oral Sci 2009;17(5):364–369. DOI: 10.1590/s1678-77572009000500003
  6. Frencken JE, Peters MC, Manton DJ, et al. Minimal intervention dentistry for managing dental caries - a review: report of a FDI task group. Int Dent J 2012;62(5):223–243. DOI: 10.1111/idj.12007
  7. Chan KH, Mai Y, Kim H, et al. Review: resin composite filling. Materials 2010;3(2):1228–1243. DOI: 10.3390/ma3021228
  8. Hilgert LA, de Amorim RG, Leal SC, et al. Is high-viscosity glass-ionomer-cement a successor to amalgam for treating primary molars? Dent Mater 2014;30(10):1172–1178. DOI: 10.1016/j.dental.2014.07.010
  9. Chisini LA, Collares K, Cademartori MG, et al. Restorations in primary teeth: a systematic review on survival and reasons for failures. Int J Paediatr Dent 2018;28(2):123–139. DOI: 10.1111/ipd.12346
  10. Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, et al. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. J Clin Epidemiol 2009;62(10):e1–e34. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2009.06.006
  11. Higgins JPT, Altman DG, Gotzsche PC, et al. The Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias in randomized trials. BMJ 2011;343:d5928. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.d5928
  12. Sterne JA, Hernán MA, Reeves BC, et al. ROBINS-I: a tool for assessing risk of bias in non-randomized studies of interventions. BMJ 2016;355:i4919. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.i4919
  13. Akman H, Tosun G. Clinical evaluation of bulk-fill resins and glass ionomer restorative materials: a 1-year follow-up randomized clinical trial in children. Niger J Clin Pract 2020;23(4):489–497. DOI: 10.4103/njcp.njcp_519_19
  14. Ersin NK, Candan U, Aykut A, et al. A clinical evaluation of resin-based composite and glass ionomer cement restorations placed in primary teeth using the ART approach: results at 24 months. J Am Dent Assoc 2006;137(11):1529–1536. DOI: 10.14219/jada.archive.2006.0087
  15. Pani SC. Comparison of high viscosity glass ionomer cement to composite restorations placed in primary teeth under general anesthesia. Pediatr Dent J 2018;28(3):154–159. DOI: 10.1016/j.pdj.2018.08.001
  16. Kupietzky A, Atia Joachim D, Tal E, et al. Long-term clinical performance of heat-cured high-viscosity glass ionomer class II restorations versus resin-based composites in primary molars: a randomized comparison trial. Eur Arch Paediatr Dent 2019;20(5):451–456. DOI: 10.1007/s40368-019-00423-x
  17. Bezerra IM, Brito ACM, de Sousa SA, et al. Glass ionomer cements compared with composite resin in restoration of noncarious cervical lesions: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Heliyon 2020;6(5):e03969. DOI: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2020.e03969
  18. Dorri M, Martinez-Zapata MJ, Walsh T, et al. Atraumatic restorative treatment versus conventional restorative treatment for managing dental caries. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2017;12(12):CD008072. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD008072.pub2
  19. Turkun L, Kanik O. A prospective six-year clinical study evaluating reinforced glass ionomer cements with resin coating on posterior teeth: quo vadis? Oper Dent 2016;41(6):587–598. DOI: 10.2341/15-331-C
  20. Mickenautsch S, Yengopal V. Failure rate of direct high-viscosity glass-ionomer versus hybrid resin composite restorations in posterior permanent teeth - a systematic review. Open Dent J 2015;9:438–448. DOI: 10.2174/1874210601509010438
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.