Comparative Evaluation of Retention and Antibacterial Efficacy of Compomer and Glass Hybrid Bulk Fill Restorative Material as a Conservative Adhesive Restoration in Children with Mixed Dentition—An In Vivo Two-arm Parallel-group Double-blinded Randomized Controlled Study
Madhura V Mundada, Shivayogi M Hugar, Seema Hallikerimath, Rucha Davalbhakta, Niraj S Gokhale, Shreyas V Shah
Aim and objective: To compare and evaluate the retention along with antibacterial efficacy of colored compomer and glass hybrid bulk fill glass ionomer restorative material as a conservative adhesive restoration in children of age 6–12 years.
Materials and methods: Sixty children were selected fulfilling the inclusion and exclusion criteria falling in the age group of 6–12 years with mixed dentition and two groups were formed: group I—colored compomer and group II—glass hybrid bulk fill material. Initially, oral prophylaxis was carried out and baseline collection of saliva was completed. Then, the restorative treatment was completed. Retention of the material and antibacterial count [colony-forming units (CFU)/mL of saliva] was estimated at 1, 3, and 6 months after the restorative procedure.
Results: It was seen that retention rate with glass hybrid bulk fill group was 100%, whereas with colored compomer group it was 90% at end of 6 months. Although good antibacterial activity was shown by both the group at 1, 3, and 6 months follow-up but statistically significant drop was seen in the glass hybrid bulk fill group at 3-month intervals than the colored compomer group with a p value of 0.0001 (p < 0.05).
Conclusion: Among both the materials, glass hybrid bulk fill restorative material showed good retention compared to Colored compomer material but it was not statistically very significant. Also, both the materials have shown good antimicrobial activity at 1, 3, and 6 months follow-up.
Das U, Viswanath D, Azher U. Clinical evaluation of resin composite and resin modified lass ionomer cement in class III restorations of primary maxillary molars: a comparative in vivo study. Int J Clin Ped Dent 2009;2(2):13–19.
Qin M, Liu HS. Clinical evaluation of a flowable resin composite and flowable compomer for preventive resin restorations. Oper Dent 2005;30(5):580–587.
Europe GC, Introducing the restorative innovation of Glass Hybrid Technology: A comprehensive guide to technology (manual) GC Europe. 2011.
Bentley CD, Broderius CA, Drake CW, et al. Relationship between salivary levels of mutans streptococci and restoration longetivity. Caries Res 1990;24(4):298–300. DOI: 10.1159/000261286.
Nicholson JW. Polyacid-modified composite resins (“compomers”) and their use in clinical dentistry. Dent Mater 2007;23(5):615–622. DOI: 10.1016/j.dental.2006.05.002.
Viechtbauer W, Smits L, Kotz D, et al. A simple formula for the calculation of sample size in pilot studies. J Clin Epidemiol 2015;68(11):1375–1379. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2015.04.014.
Hesse D, Araujo MPD, Olegario IC, et al. Atraumatic restorative treatment compared to hall technique for occluso-proximal cavity in primary molar: study protocol for randomized control trial. BMC OralHealth 2016;31(17):169. DOI: 10.1186/s13063-016-1270-z.
World Health Organization. Oral health surveys: Basic methods. 4th ed., Geneva: World Heatlh Organization; 1997.
Navazesh M. Methods for collecting saliva. Ann N Y Acad Sci 1993;694(1 Saliva as a D):72–77. DOI: 10.1111/j.1749-6632.1993.tb18343.x.
Dawes C. Circadian rhythms in human salivary flow rate and composition. J Physiol 1972;220(3):529–545. DOI: 10.1113/jphysiol.1972.sp009721.
Bayne SC, Schmalz G. Reprinting the classic article on USPHS evaluation methods for measuring the clinical research performance of restorative materials. Clin Oral Invest 2005;9(4):209–214. DOI: 10.1007/s00784-005-0017-0.
Jingarwar MM, Bajwa NK, Pathak A. Minimal intervention dentistry – a new frontier in clinical dentistry. J Clin Diag Res 2014;8(7):ZE04–ZE08.
Gujjar KR, Sumra N. Minimally invasive dentistry - a review. Int J Clin Prev Dent 2013;9(2):109–120.
Caufield PW, Griffen AL. Dental caries: an infectious and transmissible disease. Pediatr Clin North Am 2000;47(5):1001–1019. DOI: 10.1016/S0031-3955(05)70255-8.
Ebrahimi M, Ajami Molook BA, Shirazi Sarraf AR, et al. Dental treatment needs of permanent first molars in Mashhad schoolchildren. J Dent Res, Dent Clin, Dent Prospec 2010;4(2):52–55.
Khodadadi E, Khafri S, Aziznezhad M. Comparison of surface Hardness of various shades of Twinky star colored compomer light-cured with QTH and LED units. Elect phys 2016;8(5):2355–2360. DOI: 10.19082/2355.
Hugar SM, Kohli D, Badkar CM, et al. Comparative assessment of conventional composites and coloured compomers in permanent molars of children with mixed dentition: A pilot study. J Clin Diag Res 2017;11(6):ZC69–ZC72. DOI: 10.7860/JCDR/2017/25596.10083.
Grossi JA, Cabral RN, Ribeiro APD, et al. Glass hybrid restorations as an alternative for restoring hypomineralized molars in the ART model. BMC Oral Health 2018;18(1):65. DOI: 10.1186/s12903-018-0528-0.
Yasa E, Atalayin C, Karacolak G, et al. Intrapulpal temperature changes during curing of different bulk-fill restorative materials. Dent Mater J 2017;36(5):566–572. DOI: 10.4012/dmj.2016-200.
Berg JH, Farrell JE, Brown LR. Class II glass ionomer/silver cermet restorations and their effect on interproximal growth of mutans streptococcus. Pediatr Dent 1990;12:20–23.
Dijken JV, Persson S, Sjostrom S. Presence of streptococcus mutans and lactobacilli in saliva and on enamel, glass ionomer cement, and composite resin surfaces. Scand J Dent Res 1991;99(1):13–19. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0722.1991.tb01017.x.