Abstract
BACKGROUND
The aim of this split-mouth design research was to compare the clinical performance of a glass-ionomer cement system on Class I/II cavities against the clinical performance of bulk-fill resin composite restoration materials.
METHODS
Thirty-five patients were randomized and enrolled in the study, aged between 10 and 12 years, all of whom had a matched pair of permanent mandibular carious molars with similar Class I/II. A total of 70 restoration placements were performed. The patients were each given two restorations consisting of either a glass-ionomer cement with a nano-filled coating or a bulk-fill resin composite after the use of a self-etch adhesive. The cumulative survival rates were estimated using log-rank test and the Kaplan-Meier method. For comparison of the restorative materials in line with the modified Ryge, the McNemar test and the Wilcoxon signed rank test were employed.
RESULTS
With regard to retention, the glass-ionomer cement system and bulk-fill resin composite performed similarly in permanent molars in Class I/II cavities over a period of up to 24-months (p > 0.05). Over the 24-month period, Class I restorations showed statistically better survival rates than Class II restorations (p < 0.05). In the case of glass-ionomer cement systems, over the two-year period, more common chipping and surface degradations were observed.
CONCLUSIONS
The glass-ionomer cement system and bulk-fill resin composite restorative materials display good clinical performance over a period of 24-months.
Uzel, İlhan