Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Clinical performance of a glass ionomer restorative system: a 6-year evaluation

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Clinical Oral Investigations Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objectives

The aim of this study is to evaluate the long-term clinical performance of a glass ionomer (GI) restorative system in the restoration of posterior teeth compared with a micro-filled hybrid posterior composite.

Materials and methods

A total of 140 (80 Cl1 and 60 Cl2) lesions in 59 patients were restored with a GI system (Equia) or a micro hybrid composite (Gradia Direct). Restorations were evaluated at baseline and yearly during 6 years according to the modified-USPHS criteria. Negative replicas at each recall were observed under SEM to evaluate surface characteristics. Data were analyzed with Cohcran’s Q and McNemar’s tests (p < 0.05).

Results

One hundred fifteen (70 Cl1 and 45 Cl2) restorations were evaluated in 47 patients with a recall rate of 79.6% at 6 years. Significant differences were found in marginal adaptation and marginal discoloration for both restorative materials for Cl1 and Cl2 restorations (p < 0.05). However, none of the materials were superior to the other (p > 0.05). A significant decrease in color match was observed in Equia restorations (p < 0.05). Only one Cl2 Equia restoration was missing at 3 years and another one at 4 years. No failures were observed at 5 and 6 years. Both materials exhibited clinically successful performance after 6 years. SEM evaluations were in accordance with the clinical findings.

Conclusions

Both materials showed a good clinical performance for the restoration of posterior teeth during the 6-year evaluation.

Clinical relevance

The clinical effectiveness of Equia and Gradia Direct Posterior was acceptable in Cl1 and Cl2 cavities subsequent to 6-year evaluation.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Brunthaler A, Konig F, Lucas T, Sperr W, Schedle A (2003) Longevity of direct resin composite restorations in posterior teeth. Clin Oral Investig 7(2):63–70

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Da Rosa Rodolpho PA, Cenci MS, Donassollo TA, Loguercio AD, Demarco FF (2006) A clinical evaluation of posterior composite restorations: 17-year findings. J Dent 34(7):427–435

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Da Rosa Rodolpho PA, Donassollo TA, Cenci MS, Loguercio AD, Moraes RR, Bronkhorst EM et al (2011) 22-Year clinical evaluation of the performance of two posterior composites with different filler characteristics. Dent Mater 27(10):955–963

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Manhart J, Chen H, Hamm G, Hickel R (2004) Buonocore Memorial Lecture. Review of the clinical survival of direct and indirect restorations in posterior teeth of the permanent dentition. Oper Dent 29(5):481–508

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Demarco FF, Correa MB, Cenci MS, Moraes RR, Opdam NJ (2012) Longevity of posterior composite restorations: not only a matter of materials. Dent Mater 28(1):87–101

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Cenci M, Demarco F, de Carvalho R (2005) Class II composite resin restorations with two polymerization techniques: relationship between microtensile bond strength and marginal leakage. J Dent 33(7):603–610

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Coelho-De-Souza FH, Camacho GB, Demarco FF, Powers JM (2008) Fracture resistance and gap formation of MOD restorations: influence of restorative technique, bevel preparation and water storage. Oper Dent 33(1):37–43

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Wilson AD, Kent BE (1972) A new translucent cement for dentistry. The glass ionomer cement. Br Dent J 132(4):133–135

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Zoergiebel J, Ilie N (2013) Evaluation of a conventional glass ionomer cement with new zinc formulation: effect of coating, aging and storage agents. Clin Oral Investig 17(2):619–626

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Ngo H, Opsahl-Vital S (2014) Minimal intervention dentistry II: part 7. Minimal intervention in cariology: the role of glass-ionomer cements in the preservation of tooth structures against caries. Br Dent J 216(10):561–565

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Glasspoole EA, Erickson RL, Davidson CL (2002) Effect of surface treatments on the bond strength of glass ionomers to enamel. Dent Mater 18(6):454–462

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Hunt PR (1994) Glass ionomers: the next generation. A summary of the current situation. J Esthet Dent 6(5):192–194

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Mount GJ (1994) Buonocore memorial lecture. Glass-ionomer cements: past, present and future. Oper Dent 19(3):82–90

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Wiegand A, Buchalla W, Attin T (2007) Review on fluoride-releasing restorative materials-fluoride release and uptake characteristics, antibacterial activity and influence on caries formation. Dent Mater 23(3):343–362

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Naasan MA, Watson TF (1998) Conventional glass ionomers as posterior restorations. A status report for the American Journal of Dentistry. Am J Dent 11(1):36–45

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Lohbauer U (2010) Dental glass ionomer cements as permanent filling materials?—properties, limitations and future trends. Materials 3(1):76–96

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. McLean J, Wilson AD (1977) The clinical development of the glass ionomer cement: II. Some clinical applications. Aust Dent J 22(2):120–127

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Davidson CL (2006) Advances in glass-ionomer cements. J Appl Oral Sci 14(sp.issue):3–9

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Scholtanus JD, Huysmans MC (2007) Clinical failure of class-II restorations of a highly viscous glass-ionomer material over a 6-year period: a retrospective study. J Dent 35(2):156–162

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Burke FJ, Lucarotti PS (2009) Re-intervention in glass ionomer restorations: what comes next? J Dent 37(1):39–43

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Ilie N, Hickel R, Valceanu AS, Huth KC (2012) Fracture toughness of dental restorative materials. Clin Oral Investig 16(2):489–498

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Friedl K, Hiller KA, Friedl KH (2011) Clinical performance of a new glass ionomer based restoration system: a retrospective cohort study. Dent Mater 27(10):1031–1037

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Diem VT, Tyas MJ, Ngo HC, Phuong LH, Khanh ND (2014) The effect of a nano-filled resin coating on the 3-year clinical performance of a conventional high-viscosity glass-ionomer cement. Clin Oral Investig 18(3):753–759

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Gurgan S, Kutuk ZB, Ergin E, Oztas SS, Cakir FY (2015) Four-year randomized clinical trial to evaluate the clinical performance of a glass ionomer restorative system. Oper Dent 40(2):134–143

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Van Dijken JW, Pallesen U (2011) Four-year clinical evaluation of Class II nano-hybrid resin composite restorations bonded with a one-step self-etch and a two-step etch-and-rinse adhesive. J Dent 39(1):16–25

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Gaengler P, Hoyer I, Montag R, Gaebler P (2004) Micromorphological evaluation of posterior composite restorations—a 10-year report. J Oral Rehabil 31(10):991–1000

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Frankenberger R, Garcia-Godoy F, Kramer N (2009) Clinical performance of viscous glass ionomer cement in posterior cavities over two years. Int J Dent. doi:10.1155/2009/781462

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Gaengler P, Hoyer I, Montag R (2001) Clinical evaluation of posterior composite restorations: the 10-year report. J Adhes Dent 3(2):185–194

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Duke ES, Trevino DF (1998) A resin-modified glass ionomer restorative: three-year clinical results. J Indiana Dent Assoc 77(3):13–16

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Folwaczny M, Loher C, Mehl A, Kunzelmann KH, Hickel R (2001) Class V lesions restored with four different tooth-colored materials—3-year results. Clin Oral Investig 5(1):31–39

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Fagundes TC, Barata TJ, Bresciani E, Santiago S, Franco EB, Lauris JR et al (2014) Seven-year clinical performance of resin composite versus resin-modified glass ionomer restorations in noncarious cervical lesions. Oper Dent 39(6):578–587

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Deligeorgi V, Mjor IA, Wilson NH (2001) An overview of reasons for the placement and replacement of restorations. Prim Dent Care 8(1):5–11

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Mount GJ (2002) An atlas of glass-ionomer cements. A clinician’s guide, 3rd edn. Martin Dunitz, London. pp 1–42

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Dentistry, Department of Restorative Dentistry, Hacettepe University, Sihhiye, 06100, Ankara, Turkey

    Sevil Gurgan, Zeynep Bilge Kutuk, Esra Ergin, Sema Seval Oztas & Filiz Yalcin Cakir

Authors
  1. Sevil Gurgan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Zeynep Bilge Kutuk
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Esra Ergin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Sema Seval Oztas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Filiz Yalcin Cakir
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Zeynep Bilge Kutuk.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Fundings

There is no funding information available.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Gurgan, S., Kutuk, Z.B., Ergin, E. et al. Clinical performance of a glass ionomer restorative system: a 6-year evaluation. Clin Oral Invest 21, 2335–2343 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-016-2028-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-016-2028-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation