An In Vivo Evaluation of Retention and Antibacterial Efficacy of Posterior High Strength Glass Ionomer Cement and Glass Hybrid Bulk-fill Alkasite Restorative Material as Conservative Adhesive Restoration in Children with Mixed Dentition: A Comparative Study

Abstract

Aim: The aim of the study was to compare and evaluate the retention and antibacterial efficacy of posterior high strength glass ionomer cement and glass hybrid bulk-fill alkasite restorative material as a conservative adhesive restoration in children with mixed dentition.

Materials and methods: A total of 60 children of age 6-12 years with mixed dentition were selected and divided into group I (control group n = 30): posterior high strength glass ionomer cement and group II (experimental group n = 30): glass hybrid bulk-fill alkasite restorative material. Restorative treatment was carried out using these two materials. Retention of the material and salivary Streptococcus mutans and Lactobacillus species count was estimated at baseline, 1, 3, and 6 months. The collected data were statistically analyzed using International Business Machines (IBM) Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) software (version 20.0 Chicago, Illinois, USA).

Results: About 100% retention of glass hybrid bulk-fill alkasite restorative material, and 90% retention of posterior high strength glass ionomer cement was observed according to United State Public Health Criteria. The * signifies statistically significant results, i.e. p < 0.0001 reduction in salivary S. mutans colony count and Lactobacillus species colony count was seen in both groups at different time intervals.

Conclusion: Both the materials showed good antibacterial properties, but glass hybrid bulk-fill alkasite restorative showed better retention, that is, 100% when compared to posterior high strength glass ionomer cement, which showed 90% retention at the end of 6 months follow-up.

How to cite this article: Soneta SP, Hugar SM, Hallikerimath S, et al. An In Vivo Evaluation of Retention and Antibacterial Efficacy of Posterior High Strength Glass Ionomer Cement and Glass Hybrid Bulk-fill Alkasite Restorative Material as Conservative Adhesive Restoration in Children with Mixed Dentition: A Comparative Study. Int J Clin Pediatr Dent 2022;15(5):529-534.

Keywords: Antimicrobial; Children; Conservative adhesive restoration; Glass hybrid bulk-fill restorative material; Posterior high strength glass ionomer cement.

Figs 1A to D

Photograph showing the growth and colonization of S. mutans at different time intervals with glass hybrid bulk-fill alkasite restoration, (A) baseline; (B) 1 month; (C) 3 months; (D) 6 months

Figs 2A to D

Photograph showing the growth and colonization of Lactobacillus species at different time intervals with posterior high strength glass ionomer cement restoration, (A) baseline; (B) 1 month; (C) 3 months; (D) 6 months

Figs 3A to D

Photograph showing procedure of restoration in posterior high strength glass ionomer cement (group I): (A) preoperative IOPA; (B) preoperative photograph; (C) cavity prepared; (D) postoperative photograph

Figs 4A to D

Procedure of restoration in glass hybrid bulk-fill alkasite restorative material (group II): (A) preoperative IOPA; (B) preoperative photograph; (C) cavity prepared; (D) postoperative photograph

Fig. 5

Intergroup comparison between two groups namely posterior high strength glass ionomer cement (group I) and glass hybrid bulk-fill alkasite restoration (group II) with respect to retention of the restorative material

Fig. 6

Difference between the mean S. mutans CFU/mL of saliva (×10⁵ CFU/mL) in posterior high strength glass ionomer cement (group I) and glass hybrid bulk-fill alkasite restoration (group II) at baseline, 1, 3, and 6-month time points

Fig. 7

Difference between the mean Lactobacillus species CFU/mL of saliva (×10⁵ CFU/mL) in posterior high strength glass ionomer cement (group I) and glass hybrid bulk-fill alkasite restoration (group II) at baseline, 1-, 3-, and 6-month time points