12 MONTH’S ASSESSMENT OF CLINICAL EFFICACY OF RESIN MODIFIED GLASS IONOMER CEMENT AND FLOWABLE COMPOSITES IN RESTORATION OF NON-CARIOUS CERVICAL LESIONS, A RANDOMIZED CLINICAL TRIAL
Keywords:Flowable Composite, Resin Modified Glass Ionomer Cement, Non-Carious Cervical Lesions, Marginal Adaptation, Retention, Surface texture.
AbstractBackground: The objective of this study was to compare the clinical efficacy of Resin modified glass ionomer cement and Flowable composite in terms of retention, marginal adaptation and surface texture using United States Public Health Service criteria in non-carious cervical lesions measured over a period of one year. Methods: A Randomized Clinical Trial is conducted with Informed consent on 60 patients who are randomly allocated into 2 groups with at least 2 Non-Carious Cervical Lesions in each. Group 1 is used for Flowable Composite while group 2 is used for resin modified glass ionomer cement. A recall is maintained to draw conclusions between two materials in terms of occurrence of marginal adaptation, retention and surface texture, to show which material is superior to other. Results: Out of 30 restorations in 12 months follow up, only 19 found to be present in flowable composite group while in resin modified glass ionomer cement group, 28 are retained. Regarding margin integrity, Group 1 showed 21 intact margins whereas 23 margins were intact in group 2, while 18 and 25 showed smooth surface in flowable composite and Resin modified glass ionomer cement group respectively, on exploration. Conclusion: It can be concluded from our study that Resin modified glass ionomer cement is superior to Flowable composite in terms of retention (p=0.005) and surface texture (p=0.045) in restoration of non-carious cervical lesion.
Smith BG, Knight JK. An index for measuring the wear of teeth. Br Dent J 1984;156(12):435–8.
Wood I, Jawad Z, Paisley C, Brunton P. Non-carious cervical tooth surface loss: a literature review. J Dent 2008;36(10):759–66.
Michael JA, Kaidonis JA, Townsend GC. Non-carious cervical lesions: a scanning electron microscopic study. Aust Dent J 2010;55(2):138–42.
Salem MN, Hafez S. Aesthetic Management of Erosive Tooth Wear in a Young Egyptian Swimmer: A Case Report. Clin Cosmet Investig Dent 2021;13:201–9.
Lussi A, Carvalho TS. Erosive tooth wear: a multifactorial condition of growing concern and increasing knowledge. Monogr Oral Sci 2014;25:1–15.
Shellis RP, Addy M. The interactions between attrition, abrasion and erosion in tooth wear. Monogr Oral Sci 2014;25:32–45.
Santos MJ, Ari N, Steele S, Costella J, Banting D. Retention of tooth-colored restorations in non-carious cervical lesions-a systematic review. Clin Oral Investig 2014;18(5):1369–81.
Gonçalves DFM, Shinohara MS, Carvalho PRMA, Ramos FSES, Oliveira LC, Omoto ÉM, et al. Three-year evaluation of different adhesion strategies in non-carious cervical lesion restorations: a randomized clinical trial. J Appl Oral Sci 2021;29:e20210192.
Oz FD, Meral E, Ergİn E, Gurgan S. One-year evaluation of a new restorative glass ionomer cement for the restoration of non-carious cervical lesions in patients with systemic diseases: a randomized, clinical trial. J Appl Oral Sci 2020;28:e20200311.
Zhang H, Wang L, Hua L, Guan R, Hou B. Randomized controlled clinical trial of a highly filled flowable composite in non-carious cervical lesions: 3-year results. Clin Oral Investig 2021;25(10):5955–65.
Soares PV, Machado AC, Zeola LF, Souza PG, Galvão AM, Montes TC, et al. Loading and composite restoration assessment of various non-carious cervical lesions morphologies - 3D finite element analysis. Aust Dent J 2015;60(3):309–16
Mahn E, Rousson V, Heintze S. Meta-Analysis of the Influence of Bonding Parameters on the Clinical Outcome of Tooth-colored Cervical Restorations. J Adhes Dent 2015;17(5):391–403
Kampanas NS, Antoniadou M. Glass Ionomer Cements for the Restoration of Non-Carious Cervical Lesions in the Geriatric Patient. J Funct Biomate 2018;9(3):42.
Atalay C, Ozgunaltay G, Yazici AR. Thirty-six-month clinical evaluation of different adhesive strategies of a universal adhesive. Clin Oral Investig 2020;24(4):1569–78.
Carvalho TS, Colon P, Ganss C, Huysmans MC, Lussi A, Schlueter N, et al. Consensus report of the European Federation of Conservative Dentistry: Erosive tooth wear-diagnosis and management. Swiss Dent J 2016;126(4):342–6.
Grippo JO, Simring M, Coleman TA. Abfraction, abrasion, biocorrosion, and the enigma of non-carious cervical lesions: a 20-year perspective. J Esthet Restor Dent 2012;24(1):10–23.
Baroudi K, Rodrigues JC. Flowable Resin Composites: A Systematic Review and Clinical Considerations. J Clin Diagn Res 2015;9(6):ZE18–24.
Szesz A, Parreiras S, Reis A, Loguercio A. A Selective enamel etching in cervical lesions for self-etch adhesives: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Dent 2016;53:1–11.
Boushell LW, Heymann HO, Ritter AV, Sturdevant JR, Swift EJ Jr, Wilder AD Jr, et al. Six-year clinical performance of etch-and-rinse and self-etch adhesives. Dent Mater 2016;32(9):1065–72.
Oz FD, Kutuk ZB, Ozturk C, Soleimani R, Gurgan S. An 18-month clinical evaluation of three different universal adhesives used with a universal flowable composite resin in the restoration of non-carious cervical lesions. Clin Oral Investig 2019;23(3):1443–52.
Dreweck FDS, Burey A, de Oliveira Dreweck M, Loguercio AD, Reis A. Adhesive strategies in cervical lesions: systematic review and a network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Clin Oral Investig 2021;25(5):2495–510.
Schroeder M, Correa IC, Bauer J, Loguercio AD, Reis A. Influence of adhesive strategy on clinical parameters in cervical restorations: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Dent 2017;62:36–53.
Adeleke, Oginni A. Clinical evaluation of resin composite and resin-modified glass ionomer cement in non-carious cervical lesions. J West Afr Coll Surg 2012;2(4):21–37.