Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Clinical Trial
. 2003 Winter;5(4):323-32.

Five-year double-blind randomized clinical evaluation of a resin-modified glass ionomer and a polyacid-modified resin in noncarious cervical lesions

Alessandro D Loguercio  1 , Alessandra Reis, Alcebíades N Barbosa, Jean François Roulet
Affiliations
  • PMID: 15008339
Clinical Trial

Five-year double-blind randomized clinical evaluation of a resin-modified glass ionomer and a polyacid-modified resin in noncarious cervical lesions

Alessandro D Loguercio et al. J Adhes Dent. 2003 Winter.

Abstract

Purpose: The aim of this double-blind randomized study was to compare the clinical performance of a resin-modified glass ionomer (Vitremer, 3M) and a polyacid-modified resin (Dyract, Dentsply DeTrey) in noncarious Class V restorations after 5 years.

Materials and methods: Twelve patients, having at least one pair of equal-sized noncarious cervical lesions under occlusion and a mean age of 40 years (range 19 to 63 years; median 41), were enrolled in this study. A total of 32 restorations (16 with each material) were placed according to the manufacturers' instructions by two calibrated operators. Two other independent examiners evaluated the restorations at baseline and after 5 years according to the USPHS criteria. The assessment criteria were: retention, anatomical form, marginal adaptation and marginal discoloration, color match, surface texture, and secondary caries. Statistical analysis was conducted using Fisher's exact test (alpha = 0.05).

Results: No secondary caries was detected with either material. The retention rate for Vitremer (93%) and for Dyract (78.5%) did not differ significantly (p > 0.05). Regarding anatomical form, only two restorations of each material were recorded as bravo. In terms of marginal adaptation, 38.5% of Dyract restorations were rated alpha and 61.5% bravo, while 84.6% of Vitremer restorations were rated alpha and only 15.4% bravo (p < 0.05). For marginal discoloration, 18.2% of Dyract restorations and 84.6% of Vitremer restorations were rated alpha, with the remaining rated bravo. 86% of Vitremer restorations were rated as bravo and 23% alpha for both surface texture and color match. All Dyract restorations were classified as alpha regarding surface texture, and only two Dyract restorations (18.2%) were classified as bravo in the color match item.

Conclusion: The marginal adaptation of the RMGIC (Vitremer) was significantly better, the marginal discoloration lower, and the retention rate higher (though not significantly) than that of the PMRC (Dyract) after 5 years in situ. Dyract performed better in terms of surface texture and color match in noncarious Class V restorations after 5 years.

PubMed Disclaimer

Publication types