A clinical comparison of glass ionomer, resin-modified glass ionomer and resin composite restorations in the treatment of cervical caries in xerostomic head and neck radiation patients. Mineral loss on adjacent enamel glass ionomer cements restorations after cariogenic and erosive challenges. Atraumatic Restorative Treatment with Resin-Modified Glass Ionomer Material: Short-Term Results of a Pilot Study Evaluating the effects of fluoride-releasing dental materials on adjacent interproximal caries. A clinical study of glass ionomer cement. Demineralization around orthodontic brackets bonded with resin-modified glass ionomer cement and fluoride-releasing resin composite. Clinical evaluation of giomer- and resin-modified glass ionomer cement in class V noncarious cervical lesions: An in vivo study A clinical evaluation of resin-based composite and glass ionomer cement restorations placed in primary teeth using the ART approach: results at 24 months. The success rates of a glass ionomer cement and a resin-based fissure sealant placed by fifth-year undergraduate dental students Long-term clinical evaluation of fracture and pulp injury following glass-ionomer cement or composite resin applied as a base filling in teeth restored with amalgam. Effectiveness of a glass ionomer cement used as a pit and fissure sealant in recently erupted permanent first molars. Chlorhexidine-containing glass ionomer cement. A clinical investigation on the fissure caries inhibiting effect in first permanent molars. Conventional versus resin-modified glass-ionomer cement for Class II restorations in primary molars. A 3-year clinical study. In vivo bracket retention comparison of a resin-modified glass ionomer cement and a resin-based bracket adhesive system after a year. The effects of two cavity preparation methods on the longevity of glass ionomer cement restorations: an evaluation after 12 months. Retention of a glass ionomer cement and a resin-based fissure sealant and effect on carious outcome after 7 years. Inhibition of demineralization adjacent to tooth-colored restorations in primary teeth after 2 in vitro challenges.
Controversy exists as to whether there is less secondary caries at the margins of glass ionomer restorations compared with other material s that do not release fluoride . This study examined the incidence of secondary caries for three types of restorative material s in Class V restorations in xerostomic patients . The study group consisted of 45 high caries-risk adult patients who had undergone head and neck irradiation for the treatment of cancer . All were substantially xerostomic and in need of at least three restorations in the same arch . Every patient received a restoration with each of the test material s , a conventional glass ionomer ( GI ) , a resin modified glass ionomer ( RMGI ) and a resin composite ( C ) . Patients were instructed in the daily use of a neutral pH sodium fluoride gel in custom trays . Recall appointments were made at 6 , 12 , 18 and 24 months , and the restorations were examined for material loss , marginal integrity and recurrent caries at the restoration margin . Fluoride compliance was determined at each recall period and recorded as the percentage of recommended use during that interval . Patients were categorized at the end of the study as fluoride non-users if their average compliance was 50 % or less . Those with greater than 50 % compliance were categorized as fluoride users . In the latter group , no recurrent caries was found for any of the restorations , whereas a material -dependent incidence of recurrent caries was found in the fluoride non-user group . None of the GI , one RMGI and eight C restorations failed due to recurrent caries . For the fluoride non-user patients , Fishers exact test ( p=0.05 ) showed no statistical difference between GI and RMGI but statistical differences were found among those material s and resin composite at each recall period . Recurrent caries reductions for GI and RMGI relative to C were greater than 80 % in xerostomic patients not using topical fluoride supplementation OBJECTIVES the purpose of this study was to determine the mineral loss on surrounding enamel restored with glass ionomer cements ( GIC ) after erosive and cariogenic challenges . METHODS Bovine enamel specimens were r and omly assigned into six groups according to the restorative material : G1 - composite resin ; G2 - high viscous GIC ; G3 - resin-modified glass ionomer with nanoparticles ; G4 - encapsulated resin-modified GIC ; G5 - encapsulated high viscous GIC ; G6 - resin-modified GIC . After restorative procedures , half of specimens in each group were su bmi tted to caries challenge using a pH cycling model for 5 days , and the other half were su bmi tted to erosive challenge in citric acid for 10 min . Before and after the challenges , surface Knoop microhardness assessment s were performed and mineral changes were calculated for adjacent enamel at different distances from restorative margin . RESULTS Data were compared for significant differences using two-way ANOVA and Student-Newman-Keuls tests ( p<0.05 ) . Erosive challenge significantly reduced enamel surface hardness , but no significant difference was observed irrespectively restorative material s ( p>0.05 ) . The cariogenic challenge promoted a higher surface hardness loss for the resin-modified GIC ( G4 ) and only for the High viscous GIC ( G2 ) an increase in surface hardness was observed . For enamel analyses , significant differences were observed with respect to the different material s ( p<0.001 ) and distances ( p=0.023 ) . Specimens restored with the composite resin presented higher mineral loss and specimens restored with the conventional high viscous GIC and the encapsulated resin-modified GIC presented the lowest values for mineral loss . CONCLUSION The GICs exerts protective effect only for cariogenic challenge Objectives : The aim of this study was to assess the feasibility of the resin-modified glass ionomer ( RMGI ) material in atraumatic restorative treatment ( ART ) approach and compare RMGI with the high-strength traditional glass ionomer cement ( GIC ) in permanent teeth with one or more surface-carious cavities . Material s and Methods : This study was conducted in a village school in rural southeastern Anatolia , Turkey . The RMGI and GIC restorations with the ART technique were placed r and omly employing a split mouth design . In addition , the ART approach was used when necessary for both primary and /or permanent teeth with no pulpal involvement and no perceived pain before treatment . Ninety-one fillings were placed on contralateral molar pairs of 37 children . Baseline and 6-month evaluation of the fillings were made with the classic ART , modified Ryge and USPHS criteria . Results : Based on the ART criteria , 100 % of RMGI and 92.4 % of GIC restorations were classified as successful after 6 months , and the difference between the 2 groups was statistically significant ( p = 0.009 ) . While marginal discoloration was the commonest failure in the RMGI group according to both the modified Ryge and USPHS criteria , unsatisfactory surface texture and low anatomic form were the commonly seen failures in the ART technique . Conclusion : Generally , for each rating system , RMGI exhibited better clinical performance than GIC in all categories , except for marginal discoloration . Results based on the 6-month evaluation show that RMGI can be an alternative material to the GIC BACKGROUND The authors examined several restorative material s to evaluate their ability to inhibit demineralization and enhance remineralization of incipient carious lesions on the interproximal enamel of teeth adjacent to those restored with the material s. METHODS Twenty-one subjects in need of a crown on a m and ibular molar and a Class II inlay on an adjacent tooth took part in this six-phase study . Artificial enamel lesions were created and positioned within the interproximal portion of a crown . Lesions were photographed with polarized light microscopy and characterized before and after 30-day intraoral exposures . Each phase included the placement of a new section in the crown model and a new Class II inlay restorative material in the adjacent tooth . RESULTS Results demonstrated that nonfluori date d resin composite , fluori date d resin composite and resin-modified glass ionomer restorative material s , when placed in subjects who brushed with a fluori date d dentifrice , demonstrated significantly ( P < .05 ) less enamel demineralization than the nonfluori date d resin composite control placed in subjects who brushed with a nonfluori date d dentifrice . The resin-modified glass ionomer cement , however , even when brushed with a nonfluori date d dentifrice , exhibited significantly ( P < .05 ) less demineralization than the nonfluori date d resin composite control brushed with a nonfluori date d dentifrice . CONCLUSIONS Resin-modified glass ionomer cement appears to significantly inhibit demineralization of interproximal enamel of teeth adjacent to those restored with the material . CLINICAL IMPLICATION S Resin-modified glass ionomer cement restorations can enhance prevention of enamel demineralization on adjacent teeth The aim of this investigation was to compare the clinical performance of a glass ionomer cement ( GIC ) with a composite resin when used for direct bonding of st and ard edgewise orthodontic brackets . Fourteen patients ( 10 females , four males ) , in whom 242 teeth were bonded with brackets , were divided into two groups : GIC ( 121 teeth ) and composite ( 121 teeth ) . The brackets were allocated to alternate quadrants and first-time failures were recorded over a period of 24 months . Data were analysed statistically ( non-parametric chi-squared test ) . The results demonstrated a significantly lower unp review ed debonding index ( UDI ) ( 15.7 per cent ) for the composite than for the GIC ( 28.1 per cent ) ( P = 0.042 ) . The use of heavy archwires was largely responsible for this difference . No difference was observed when light and medium archwires were used . GIC may be a viable alternative to composite for use with light archwires and with limited treatment objectives PURPOSE Enamel demineralization adjacent to orthodontic brackets is one of the risks associated with orthodontic treatment . Glass ionomer cements have been shown to decrease enamel demineralization adjacent to brackets and b and s but do not exhibit bond strengths comparable to resin composites . The purpose of this in vitro study was to compare a fluoride-releasing resin composite versus a resin-modified glass ionomer cement for inhibition of enamel demineralization surrounding orthodontic brackets . METHODS Forty-five teeth were r and omly assigned to 3 groups of 15 teeth . Fifteen were bonded with Concise ( 3 M ) , a non-fluoride-releasing resin composite ( control ) ; 15 teeth were bonded with Light Bond ( Reliance ) , a fluoride-releasing resin composite ; and 15 teeth were bonded with Fuji Ortho LC ( GC Corporation ) , a resin-modified glass ionomer cement . The teeth were placed in an artificial caries solution to create lesions . Following sectioning of the teeth in a buccolingual direction , polarized light microscopy was utilized to evaluate enamel demineralization adjacent to the orthodontic bracket . The area of the lesion was measured 100 microns from the orthodontic bracket and bonding agent . RESULTS MANOVA ( P < .0001 ) and Duncan 's test ( P < .05 ) indicated the resin-modified glass ionomer cement ( Fuji Ortho LC ) and the fluoride-releasing resin composite ( Light Bond ) had significantly less adjacent enamel demineralization than the non-fluoride-releasing resin composite control . However , there was no significant difference between the resin-modified glass ionomer cement and the fluoride-releasing resin composite . CONCLUSIONS Based on the results of this in vitro study , it can be concluded that Fuji Ortho LC and Light Bond exhibit significant inhibition of adjacent demineralization compared to the non-fluoride-releasing control Objectives : To evaluate and compare the clinical performance of Giomer ( Beautifil II ) and RMGIC ( Fuji II LC ) in noncarious cervical lesions . Material s and Methods : Thirty-two subjects with one or two pairs of noncarious cervical lesions were included in the study . Each pair of lesion was restored with either giomer or RMGIC assigned r and omly . Clinical evaluation of restorations was done using USPHS criteria . Data was formulated in a pre design ed format and subjected to statistical analysis using the chi square test . Results : Statistically significant difference was found between RMGIC and Giomer with respect to surface roughness with P value < 0.001 . Conclusion : Giomer showed superior surface finish compared to RMGIC . Both Giomer and RMGIC showed equal retention ability BACKGROUND The authors evaluated the 24-month performance of a packable resin-based composite/dentin bonding system and a high-viscosity glass ionomer cement ( GIC ) in restorations placed in primary molars with the atraumatic restorative treatment ( ART )  approach . METHODS Three dentists placed 419 restorations in 219 children aged 6 through 10 years who had bilateral matched pairs of carious posterior Class I and II primary teeth . They used a split-mouth design to place the two material s , which were assigned r and omly to contralateral sides . The authors evaluated the restorations according to U.S. Public Health Service Ryge criteria . RESULTS After 24 months , 96.7 percent of the Class I GIC restorations and 91 percent of the resin-based composite restorations survived , while the success rates for the Class II restorations were 76.1 percent and 82 percent for the GIC and resin-based composite restorations , respectively . The survival rate of the Class II resin-based composite restorations was 5.9 percent higher than that of the GIC restorations at the 24-month evaluation , but this difference was not statistically significant . However , the study results showed a statistically significant difference in survival rates between Class I and II restorations for both material s. CONCLUSION AND CLINICAL IMPLICATION S The two-year clinical performance of both material s was satisfactory for the restoration of Class I and II primary molars using the ART approach AIM : To evaluate retention and caries prevention of a glass-ionomer cement ( GIC ) and a resin-based fissure sealant placed by fifth-year undergraduate dental students . METHODS : The study was conducted according to a split-mouth , r and omised clinical trial . Children with at least one pair of caries-free permanent first molars with deep pits and fissures were included in the study . The children were selected from a population that had a high risk for dental caries .  Sealant material s were applied by fifth-year undergraduate dental students on 346  fissures of the first permanent molars in 173 children . The ages of the children ranged from 7–15 years ( mean 9.4 ) . Two research ers at the clinics supervised all of the procedures . Intra-examiner reproducibility and inter-examiner reproducibility were 0.90 and 0.86 , respectively , for the clinical assessment of sealant retention and caries evaluation . RESULTS :  GIC sealants were completely lost in 31.9 % and resin-based sealants in 16.6 % ( p<0.05 ) . The total retention rates of GIC sealants and resin-based sealants were 13.8 % and 20.8 % , respectively . After 24 months , the caries increment was 3.4 % for GIC sealants and 4.8 % for resin-based sealants ( p>0.05 ) . CONCLUSIONS : The retention of GIC sealants was markedly inferior to the retention of resin-based sealants ; however , GIC when used as a pit and fissure sealant was slightly more effective in preventing occlusal caries The aim of this research was to analyse the long-term clinical behaviour of two dental material s applied as filling under  silver amalgam restorations  : glass-ionomer cement ( GIC ) and composite resin with adhesive system ( CR ) . In this study , 117 posterior teeth ( 29 premolars and 88 molars ) were selected with carious lesions which result ed in great loss of dentin and cusps with unsupported enamel . After caries removal , cavities were prepared and totally filled with GIC or with CR . In a following visit , new cavities were prepared , leaving the employed filling material as a base and support for the enamel , which were then restored with silver amalgam . Restorations were evaluated periodically after 6 months and up to 5 years . Both fracture and pulpal involvement rates were low . Although differences could be observed in the behaviour of the material s , statistical survival estimation showed that the performances of GIC and CR as filling material were similar . There was a significant association both between kind of tooth ( molar or premolar ) and long-term survival of the restorations ; and between degree of unsupported enamel and the same long-term survival . Our results confirmed that the technique in which GIC or CR are used as filling under  silver amalgam restorations is clinical ly acceptable PURPOSE This study 's purpose was to evaluate the caries-preventive effect of a glass ionomer cement ( GIC ) used as an occlusal sealant on recently erupted permanent first molars . METHODS A double-blind , r and omized , controlled , clinical trial was undertaken that included 36 5- to 8-year-olds ( and 92 permanent first molars ) who were r and omly allocated to the test group ( GIC ) or the control group ( auto-polymerized resin-based sealant [ RBS ] )  . The Mann-Whitney test was used to compare the number of new carious or filled occlusal surfaces in the 2 groups . RESULTS After 6 months , 1 occlusal surface in the test group and 2 occlusal surfaces in the control group showed carious lesions ( P=.15 ) . In the fifth year of follow-up , 2 occlusal surfaces in the test group and 7 occlusal surfaces in the control group were filled or carious ( P=.42 ) , and the mean number of sealed surfaces that became carious or filled was 0.2 ( 95 % confidence interval [CI]=0.02 - 0.70 ) for the GIC-sealed teeth and 0.6 ( 95 % CI=0.20 - 1.30 ) for the RBS-sealed teeth ( P=.30 ) . CONCLUSION High-viscosity glass ionomer cement can provide some level of protection against dental caries when used as a dental sealant in newly erupted permanent first molars UNLABELLED Glass ionomer cement with addition of chlorhexidine used as a varnish on tooth surfaces has been shown to reduce the number of interproximal mutans streptococci ( ms ) . The effect of a single application of such a varnish containing 2.5 % chlorhexidine on occlusal caries development of the first permanent molars on 6-year-old children in a high caries incidence area was investigated . The children were examined according to WHO criteria and 262 children with 2 caries free contra-lateral molars were selected for treatment . Salivary ms sample s were collected using the Strip-mutans ( SM ) method . After brushing the occlusal surfaces with a toothbrush and pumice in water slurry , rinsing and drying with a cotton roll , glass ionomer cement containing chlorhexidine ( GI-CHX ) and glass ionomer ( GI ) were applied r and omly with a micro brush and the varnish was covered with occlusal wax . At baseline , the mean defs was 18.18 and DMFS was 0.25 and after one year 18.24 and 0.83 respectively . The salivary ms scores were high or very high ( SM 2 and 3 ) in 85.6 % at baseline . At the one-year follow up , the GI-CHX and GI material s could not be detected in the fissures . Also , a large number of fissure sealants had been placed in the molars outside the study protocol ; thus 4 % of the GI-CHX and GI , and 70 % of the untreated were sealed at year one . Overall , there was no significant difference between the caries-reducing effect of GI-CHX and GI , but a trend towards a higher effect was seen for GI-CHX . Excluding the sealed molars the reduction was 74 % in the GI-CHX-group , and 71 % in the GI-group . CONCLUSION Addition of 2.5 % chlorhexidine to glass ionomer did not seem to increase the caries-reducing effect of the varnish in this high caries incidence population OBJECTIVE To compare the clinical performance of two glass-ionomer cements (GICs)for  Class II restorations in primary molars : a conventional cement ( Fuji II ) and a resin-modified cement ( Vitremer ) . DESIGN Split mouth and r and om assignment to the two material s were used for the majority of the molars . SAMPLE AND METHODS Forty consecutive 4 - 7-year-old children were included . One operator made 115 restorations : 53 with Vitremer and 62 with Fuji II . The restorations were evaluated clinical ly , radiographically and from colour photographs . RESULTS The cumulative success rate of the Vitremer restorations was 94 % and that of the Fuji II restorations 81 % . The difference is statistically significant . The risk of a failed restoration was more than five times higher with Fuji II than with Vitremer as the restorative material . Of the 13 unsuccessful restorations , seven had lost their retention , four had secondary caries , and two were fractured . CONCLUSIONS The resin-modified GIC offered advantages over the conventional GIC for restoring approximal caries in primary molars Glass ionomer orthodontic adhesives cause less enamel demineralization during fixed orthodontic appliance treatment than do traditional resin-based products . An in vivo r and omized clinical trial was performed comparing the clinical performance of a resin-modified glass ionomer ( RMGI ) adhesive with a no-mix , resin-based ( the control ) adhesive over a 12-month period . The split-mouth technique was used to analyze bracket retention , bracket failure causes , and mode of failure for both adhesives in 61 patients .  Bracket-failure rates were 10 % for the RMGI and 4 % for the resin-based adhesive . Both adhesives had 4 times more bracket failures when opposing occlusion was present . The resin-based product demonstrated a higher proportion of resin-to-enamel adhesive failures than did the RMGI . Compared with the resin-based adhesive , the RMGI-bracketed teeth showed improved clinical performance , no enamel surface loss , less enamel demineralization , and faster adhesive removal . However , the RMGI had a 2.6 times greater bracket-failure rate than did the resin-based product BACKGROUND The authors undertook a study to evaluate the effect of two cavity preparation methods on the initial survival of two more-viscous glass ionomer cements , or GICs , placed in the occlusal surfaces of permanent molar teeth . METHODS Three dentists placed 149 restorations in 68 adult patients in a hospital clinic . They used either atraumatic restorative treatment , or ART , or conventional cavity preparation methods to place two encapsulated esthetic conventional GICs : Fuji IX GP ( GC International Corp. , Tokyo ) and Ketac-Molar Aplicap ( 3 M ESPE , Seefeld , Germany ) . For comparison , they used high-copper-content GK Amalgam Alloy ( Advanced Technology & Material s Co. Ltd. , Beijing ) in conventional preparations . They evaluated the restorations using both direct and indirect observation methods . RESULTS Cavity preparations for which the authors used ART h and instruments took approximately twice as long to complete as did those for which they used conventional rotary instruments . After 12 months , no restorations had failed , but restorations comprising both GICs showed early losses of adjacent sealant material . Both GICs also showed relatively high restoration wear . At 12 months , the mean cumulative net occlusal wear for Fuji IX GP was 77 + /- 47 micrometers , and for Ketac-Molar 83 + /- 51 microm , without statistical significance ( P > .05 ) . Color matching improved significantly with time ( P < .001 ) , without significant differences in color between the two GICs by 12 months ( P = .09 ) . The amalgam alloy had minor surface tarnishing and marginal discrepancies increased with time ( P < .00 1 ) . CONCLUSIONS All of the occlusal restorations were rated as satisfactory after 12 months . The method of cavity preparation did not affect the restoration performance of the GICs . However , their deterioration requires long-term monitoring . Clinical Implication s. The more viscous GICs appear initially suitable for restricted use in clinical practice when placed using either of two cavity preparation methods in the occlusal surfaces of permanent molar teeth in adults The aim of this study was to compare the retention and caries preventive efficacy of glass ionomer ( Fuji III ; GIC ) and light-cured resin-based ( Delton ; LCR ) fissure sealants .  One hundred and sixty-six 5 - 14-year-old schoolchildren received sealants on their newly erupted first or second molars ; a split mouth design was used . Previously reported 2-year results showed low retention rates for GIC sealants , but no difference in the caries increment between the groups . The same persons were invited to a dental check-up 6.1 to 7.8 ( mean 7.1 ) years after the application of sealants ;  111 persons ( 66.8 % of the original group ) participated in the study . The retention of sealants , and the caries status of occlusal surfaces and adjacent proximal surfaces was recorded . On the sealed occlusal surfaces , 10 % of GIC and 45 % of LCR sealants were totally and 9 % of GIC and 20 % of LCR sealants partially present . Twenty-three ( 23.5 % ) of the occlusal surfaces sealed with GIC and 16 ( 16.5 % ) of those sealed with LCR were carious or filled . Compared to LCR sealants , the effectiveness of GIC sealants  was -44 % ( 95 % CI -71 % , -16 % ) and net gain -7 % ( 95 % CI -18 % , 4 % ) . The relative risk of caries occurring was 1.44 ( 95 % CI 0.96 , 2.14 ) PURPOSE As clinical diagnosis of secondary caries is the most common reason for restoration replacement , fluoride-releasing restorative material s have been developed to address this problem . The purpose s of this study were to verify demineralization inhibition produced by 5 restorative material s su bmi tted to two methods of in vitro cariogenic challenge and verify whether these methods influence material behavior by means of polarized light microscopy and microhardness . METHODS Class V cavities were prepared on buccal surfaces of 100 extracted primary molars and r and omly restored with 1 of the 4 fluoride-releasing material s , Fuji IX , Vitremer , Dyract , Tetric Ceram , and Filtek Z250 as control material ( N=10 ) . Specimens were su bmi tted to in vitro caries induction by two different methods , acid gel immersion , and pH cycling . Teeth su bmi tted to gel were then sectioned and prepared for polarized light microscopy in water , while teeth cycled were prepared for microhardness evaluation . RESULTS Polarized light microscopy : Means of demineralization areas ( microm(2 ) ) differed significantly , depending on the restorative material . Tukey 's test revealed the smallest demineralization areas adjacent to Fuji IX and Vitremer restorations , with no difference between them ( P>.05 ) . The greatest demineralization area mean values were verified using Dyract and Filtek Z250 , without differences between them ( P>.05 ) . Microhardness : Glass ionomer cements ( GICs ) performed better on the area of great cariogenic challenge , closer to the surface , than other material s indicating minor mineral loss during pH cycling . The compomer Dyract presented similar performance to GICs and composite resin Tetric Ceram , but it was better than Filtek Z250 . CONCLUSION The experimental model of caries lesion induction may influence material performance . GICs , however , are superior in preventing in vitro demineralization independently of the method
The evidence suggests that RM-GIC is associated with a higher reduction of demineralization in adjacent hard tooth tissue than composite resin without fluoride .
No difference was found when RM-GIC was compared with fluoride-containing composite resin .
RM-GIC showed efficacy in reducing demineralization .
UNLABELLED The purpose of this systematic review was to quantitatively find out whether resin-modified glass-ionomers ( RM-GIC ) , in comparison to fluoride-containing composite resin and composite resin without fluoride , are associated with a more effective reduction of demineralization in hard tooth tissues under caries challenge .