Journal of Scientific Dentistry

Register      Login

VOLUME 11 , ISSUE 1 ( January-June, 2021 ) > List of Articles

Original Article

Evaluation of Noncarious Cervical Lesions Restored with Resin-modified Glass Ionomer and Glass Carbomer: A Single-blind Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial

Jasmine J Rayapudi, Ramarao Sathyanarayanan, Usha Carounanidy, Bindu M John

Citation Information : Rayapudi JJ, Sathyanarayanan R, Carounanidy U, John BM. Evaluation of Noncarious Cervical Lesions Restored with Resin-modified Glass Ionomer and Glass Carbomer: A Single-blind Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial. 2021; 11 (1):8-15.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10083-0940

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 01-07-2021

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2021; The Author(s).


Aims and objectives: To compare and evaluate the clinical performance of glass carbomer cement over a period of 1 year, with that of resin-modified glass ionomer cement (RMGIC) in noncarious cervical lesions (NCCLs) in permanent teeth using the University of North Carolina (UNC)-modified United States Public Health Services (USPHS) criteria. Materials and methods: Thirty-three subjects (30–60 years) with NCCLs of not >2 mm depth in premolars were recruited. Fifty-six NCCLs were restored with RMGIC (group I) and another 56 NCCLs with glass carbomer (group II). Single-blind evaluation of clinical parameters was performed at baseline, 3rd, 6th, and 12th month using modified USPHS criteria. Intragroup comparison at various intervals was evaluated using the McNemar test and the intergroup comparison using Fisher's exact tests. Results: Recall rate was 73.2% for 1 year. Statistically significant decline was present after 12 months for marginal integrity (p = 0.008), anatomic form (0.002), and color match (p = 0.0003) for group II. Group I restorations showed better results in terms of retention, marginal integrity (p = 0.005), color match (p < 0.0001), wear (p = 0.0311), recurrent caries (p = 0.0228), marginal staining (p = 0.0086), fracture (p = 0.0054), and postoperative sensitivity (p = 0.0574). Conclusion: Glass carbomer, despite containing nano-sized powder particles and thermal setting, falls short of demonstrating acceptable clinical performance.

  1. Perdigão J, Dutra-Corrêa M, Saraceni S, Ciaramicoli M, Kiyan V. Randomized clinical trial of two resin-modified glass ionomer materials: 1- year results,. Oper Dent 2012;37(6):591–601. DOI: 10.2341/11-415-C.
  2. Santiago SL, Passos VF, Vieira AHM, Navarro MFDL, Lauris JRP, Franco EB. Two-year clinical evaluation of resinous restorative systems in non-carious cervical lesions. Braz Dent J 2010;21(3):229–234. DOI: 10.1590/s0103-64402010000300010.
  3. Van Duinen RNB, Davidson CL, De Gee AJ, Feilzer AJ. In situ transformation of glass-ionomer into an enamel-like material. Am J Dent 2004;17(4):223–227.
  4. Gorseta K, Borzabadi-Farahani A, Moshaverinia A, Glavina D, Lynch E. Effect of different thermo–light polymerization on flexural strength of two glass ionomer cements and a glass carbomer cement. J Prosthet Dent 2017;118(1):102–107. DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2016.09.019.
  5. Olegario IC, Ferreira Prado Malagrana APV, Ha Kim SS, Hesse D, Tedesco TK, Bissoto Calvo AF, et al. Mechanical properties of high-viscosity glass ionomer ement and nanoparticle glass carbomer. J Nanomater 2015. DOI: 10.1155/2015/472401.
  6. Cehreli SB, Tirali RE, Yalcinkaya Z, Cehreli ZC. Microleakage of newly developed glasscarbomer cement in primary teeth. Eur J Dent 2013;7(1):15–21.
  7. Gorseta K, Glavina D, Skrinjaric I. Influence of ultrasonic excitation and heat application on the microleakage of glass ionomer cements. Aust Dent J 2012;57(4):453–457. DOI: 10.1111/j.1834-7819.2012.01724.x.
  8. Jyothi K, Annapurna S, Kumar AS, Venugopal P, Jayashankara C. Clinical evaluation of giomer- and resin-modified glass ionomer cement in class V noncarious cervical lesions: an in vivo study. J Conserv Dent 2011;14(4):409–413. DOI: 10.4103/0972-0707.87214.
  9. Palmgren J. 3. Analysis of longitudinal data Diggle PJ, Heagarty P, Liang K-Y, Zeger SL, ed. 2nd ed., Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2002. Stat Med 2004; 23: 3399–3401.
  10. Glasspoole EA, Erickson RL, Davidson CL. Effect of surface treatments on the bond strength of glass ionomers to enamel. Dent Mater 2002;18(6):454–462. DOI: 10.1016/s0109-5641(01)00068-9.
  11. Bagheri R, Taha N, Azar M, Burrow M. Effect of G-Coat Plus on the mechanical properties of glass-ionomer cements. Aust Dent J 2013;58(4):448–453. DOI: 10.1111/adj.12122.
  12. Menne-Happ U, Ilie, N. Effect of gloss and heat on the mechanical behaviour of a glass carbomer cement. J Dent 2013;41(3):223–230. DOI: 10.1016/j.jdent.2012.11.005.
  13. Gorseta K, Glavina D, Borzabadi-Farahani A, Van Duinen RN, Skrinjaric I, Hill RG, et al. One-year clinical evaluation of a glass carbomer fissure sealant, a preliminary study. Eur J Prosthodont Restor Dent 2014;22(2):67–71.
  14. Ryge G, Snyder, M. Evaluating the clinical quality of restorations. J Am Dent Assoc 1973;87(2):369. DOI: 10.14219/jada.archive.1973.0421.
  15. Bayne SC, Schmalz G. Reprinting the classic article on USPHS evaluation methods for measuring the clinical research performance of restorative materials,. Clin Oral Investig 2005;9(4):1–6. DOI: 10.1007/s00784-005-0017-0.
  16. Ryge, G. Clinical criteria. Int Dent J 1980;30(4):347–358.
  17. Rayapudi J, Sathyanarayanan R, Carounanidy U, John M., [DATASET] evaluation of non-carious cervical lesions restored with resin-modified glass ionomer and glass carbomer: a single-blind randomized controlled clinical trial. Mendeley Data 2020(3):1. DOI: 10.4103/JCD.JCD_309_17.
  18. Levitch LC, Bader JD, Shugars DA, Heymann HO. Non-carious cervical lesions. J Dent 1994;22(4):195–200. DOI: 10.1016/0300-5712(94)90107-47.
  19. El-marakby AM, Al-sabri FA, Alharbi SA, Halawani SM, Yousef MT. Noncarious cervical lesions as abfraction: etiology, diagnosis, and treatment modalities of lesions: a review article. Dentistry 2017;7(06):438. DOI: 10.4172/2161-1122.1000438.
  20. Botsali MS, Ozmen B, Cortcu M, Koyuturk AE, Kahvecioglu F. Effect of new innovative restorative carbomised glass cement on intrapulpal temperature rise: an ex-vivo study. Braz Oral Res 2016;30(1):1–7. DOI: 10.1590/1807-3107BOR-2016.vol30.0067.
  21. Zach L, Cohen G. Pulp response to externally applied heat. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol 1965;19(4):515–530. DOI: 10.1016/0030-4220(65)90015-0.
  22. Nb Van Duinen R, Shahid S, Hill R, Glavina D. In-vitro study on temperature changes in the pulp chamber due to thermo-curing of glass Ionomer cements,. Acta Stomatol Croat 2016;50(4):287–291. DOI: 10.15644/asc50/4/1.
  23. Gavic L, Gorseta K, Glavina D, Czarnecka B, Nicholson JW. Heat transfer properties and thermal cure of glass-ionomer dental cements. J Mater Sci Mater Med 2015;26(10):249. DOI: 10.1007/s10856-015-5578-0.
  24. Van Meerbeek B, De Munck J, Yoshida Y, Inoue S, Vargas M, Vijay P, et al. Adhesion to enamel and dentin: current status and future challenges. Oper Dent Washington 2003;28(3):215–235.
  25. Peumans M, Kanumilli P, Demunck J, Vanlanduyt K, Lambrechts P, Vanmeerbeek B. Clinical effectiveness of contemporary adhesives: a systematic review of current clinical trials. Dent Mater 2005;21(9):864–881. DOI: 10.1016/
  26. Zainuddin N, Karpukhina N, Law RV, Hill RG. Characterisation of a remineralising glass carbomer?? ionomer cement by MAS-NMR spectroscopy. Dent Mater 2012;28(10):1051–1058. DOI: 10.1016/
  27. Algera T, Kleverlaan C, Prahlandersen B, Feilzer A. The influence of environmental conditions on the material properties of setting glass-ionomer cements,. Dent Mater 2006;22(9):852–856. DOI: 10.1016/
  28. Kleverlaan CJ, van Duinen RNB, Feilzer AJ. Mechanical properties of glass ionomer cements affected by curing methods. Dent Mater 2004;20(1):45–50. DOI: 10.1016/s0109-5641(03)00067-8.
  29. Yiu CKY, Tay FR, King NM, Pashley DH, Sidhu SK, Neo JCL, et al. Interaction of glass-ionomer cements with moist dentin. J Dent Res 2004;83(4):283–289. DOI: 10.1177/154405910408300403.
  30. Chen X, Du M, Fan M, Mulder J, Huysmans MC, Frencken JE. Effectiveness of two new types of sealants: retention after 2 years. Clin Oral Investig 2012;16(5):1443–1450. DOI: 10.1007/s00784-011-0633-9.
  31. Mjör IA, Sveen OB, Heyeraas KJ. Pulp-dentin biology in restorative dentistry. Part 1: normal structure and physiology. Quintessence Int 2001;32(6):427–446.
  32. Tolidis K, Boutsiouki C, Gerasimou P. Comparative evaluation of microleakage of a carbomer/fluoroapatite-enhanced glass-ionomer cement on primary teeth restorations. Eur J Paediatr Dent 2016;17(3):227–233.
  33. Sidhu SK, Carrick TE, McCabe JF. Temperature mediated coefficient of dimensional change of dental tooth-colored restorative materials. Dent Mater 2004;20(5):435–440. DOI: 10.1016/
  34. Attin T, Buchalla W, Kielbassa AM, Helwig E. Curing shrinkage and volumetric changes of resin-modified glass ionomer restorative materials. Dent Mater 1995;11(6):359–362. DOI: 10.1016/0109-5641(95)80035-2.
  35. Neo J, Chew CL, Yap A, Sidhu, S. Clinical evaluation of tooth-colored materials in cervical lesions. Am J Dent 1996;9(1):15–18.
  36. Gladys S, Van Meerbeek B, Lambrechts P, Vanherle G. Marginal adaptation and retention of a glass-ionomer, resin-modified glass-ionomers and a polyacid-modified resin composite in cervical Class-V lesions. Dent Mater 1998;14(4):294–306. DOI: 10.1016/s0109-5641(98)00043-8.
  37. Olegário IC, Hesse D, Mendes FM, Bonifácio CC, Raggio DP. Glass carbomer and compomer for ART restorations: 3-year results of a randomized clinical trial. Clin Oral Investig 2019;23(4):1761–1770. DOI: 10.1007/s00784-018-2593-9.
  38. Mitsuhashi A, Hanaoka K, Teranaka T. Fracture toughness of resin-modified glass ionomer restorative materials: effect of powder/liquid ratio and powder particle size reduction on fracture toughness,. Dent Mater 2003;19(8):747–757. DOI: 10.1016/s0109-5641(03)00022-8.
  39. Brandt B, Lohbauer U, Göken M, Durst K. The influence of particle size on the mechanical properties of dental glass ionomer cements. Adv Eng Mater 2010;12(12):B684–B689. DOI: 10.1002/adem.201080067.
  40. Bala O, Arisu HD, Yikilgan I, Arslan S, Gullu A. Evaluation of surface roughness and hardness of different glass ionomer cements. Eur J Dent 2012;6(1):79–86. DOI: 10.1055/s-0039-1698934.
  41. Boing TF, de Geus JL, Wambier LM, Loguercio AD, Reis A, Gomes OMM. Are glass-ionomer cement restorations in cervical lesions more long- lasting than resin-based composite resins? A systematic review and meta- analysis,. J Adhes Dent 2018;20(5):435–452. DOI: 10.3290/j.jad.a41310.
  42. de Paula A, Fucio S, Ambrosano G, Alonso R, Sardi J, Puppin-Rontani R. Biodegradation and abrasive wear of nano restorative materials. Oper Dent 2011;36(6):670–677. DOI: 10.2341/10-221-L.
  43. de França Lopes CMC, Galvan J, Chibinski ACR, Wambier DS. Fluoride release and surface roughness of a new glass ionomer cement: glass carbomer,. Rev Odontol Da Unesp 2018;47(1):1–6. DOI: 10.1590/1807-2577.06717.
  44. Vaid DS, Shah NC, Bilgi PS. One year comparative clinical evaluation of EQUIA with resin-modified glass ionomer and a nanohybrid composite in noncarious cervical lesions. J Conserv Dent 2015;18(6):449–452. DOI: 10.4103/0972-0707.168805.
  45. Savas S, Colgecen O, Yasa B, Kucukyilmaz E. Color stability, roughness, and water sorption/solubility of glass ionomer-based restorative materials. Niger J Clin Pract 2019;22(6):824–832. DOI: 10.4103/njcp.njcp_592_18.
  46. Chen X, Du MQ, Fan MW, Mulder J, Huysmans MCDNJM, Frencken JE. Caries-preventive effect of sealants produced with altered glass- ionomer materials, after 2 years. Dent Mater 2012;28(5):554–560. DOI: 10.1016/
  47. Abdalla AI, Alhadainy HA, García-Godoy F. Clinical evaluation of glass ionomers and compomers in Class V carious lesions. Am J Dent 1997;10(1):18–20.
  48. Sidhu SK. Clinical evaluations of resin-modified glass-ionomer restorations. Dent Mater 2010;26(1):7–12. DOI: 10.1016/
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.