Evaluation of Non-Carious Cervical Lesions Restored with Resin- Modified Glass Ionomer and Glass Carbomer: A Single-Blind Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial
Recently, a new glass ionomer-based restorative material that shares the essential chemistry of Glass Ionomer Cement was developed with claims of improved physical characteristics. Glass Carbomer GCP Glass Fill is a fluorapatite-containing cement with nano-sized powder particles which aid in remineralisation and bonds to dentine and enamel. The manufacturers recommend using a high-energy dental polymerization light (1400mW/cm2) to accelerate the acid-base reaction. This is claimed to improve the marginal adaptation, increase bond strength, decrease porosity, increase compressive strength and allow for shorter chair time. This study compares the clinical performance of Glass Carbomer cement with that of Resin Modified Glass Ionomer Cement (Fuji II LC) in Non Carious Cervical Restorations in permanent teeth over one year using the University of North Carolina (UNC) - Modified United States Public Health Services (USPHS) criteria. Primary outcome measures were retention rate, marginal integrity, anatomic form, surface texture, colour match, wear, marginal discolouration, recurrent caries, fracture and postoperative sensitivity of the two materials. Restorations were evaluated immediately after insertion, at three months, six months, and one year based on UNC Modified USPHS criteria by a trained and calibrated evaluator who was blinded to the study. Graph Pad Prism 6 computer software was used for statistical analysis. An intragroup comparison was done for all parameters at different time intervals with the McNemar test. Intergroup analysis for all parameters between the two groups was done using Fisher’s Exact Test. Level of significance was set at p < 0.05 with a confidence interval of 95%. Fifty-six pairs of samples were recruited from 33 patients. Overall recall rate at three months was 80.4% and at six months and one year was 73.2%. For detailed comparative analysis, the data were statistically analysed for only 37 samples from 21 patients who reported for all the timed evaluations to ensure uniformity of data. 19 cases from 12 patients were excluded from statistical analysis. Five subjects never returned after the treatment. The research data presenting data for all clinical parameters at baseline, 3 months, 6 months and 1 year is uploaded. The study concluded that though Resin Modified Glass Ionomer Cement showed superior clinical performance compared to Carbomer not much statistically significant difference was seen between them. Hence, the null hypothesis was accepted that there would be no difference in the restorations done with Resin-modified Glass Ionomer Cement and those done with GCP Glass Carbomer cement. Glass Carbomer, despite containing nano-sized powder particles and thermal setting, falls short of demonstrating acceptable clinical performance.