Long-Term Clinical Comparison Of A Resin-Based Composite And Resin Modified Glass Ionomer In The Treatment Of Cervical Caries Lesions

dc.contributor.authorKoc-Vural, Uzay
dc.contributor.authorKerimova-Kose, Leyla
dc.contributor.authorKiremitci, Arlin
dc.date.accessioned2026-04-21T06:20:25Z
dc.date.issued2024-06-16
dc.description.abstractThis 72-month study compared the clinical effectiveness of a resin-based composite (RBC) (Spectrum TPH3, Dentsply Sirona) with a resin-modified glass ionomer cement (RMGIC) (Riva Light Cure, SDI) in restoring cervical caries lesions (CCLs). Thirty-three patients, each with at least two CCLs, were enrolled. After caries removal, the dimensions of the cavities were recorded. In a split-mouth study design, a total of 110 restorations were randomly placed. Fifty-five restorations were placed with RBC using an etch-and-rinse adhesive system (Prime&Bond NT, Dentsply Sirona), while the remaining 55 were restored with RMGIC. The restorations were assessed at baseline, 6, 12, 18, 24, 36, 60, and 72 months according to modified USPHS criteria. Statistical analysis included Pearson Chi-square, Friedman tests, Kaplan Meier, and Logistic Regression analysis (p < 0.05). After 72 months, 47 restorations in 19 patients were evaluated (55% follow-up rate). Seventy-five percent of the RBC (n = 26) and 74% (n = 21) of the RMGIC restorations were fully retained. There were no significant differences between materials regarding retention and marginal adaptation (p > 0.05). Cavity dimensions, caries activity, and retention exhibited no correlation (p > 0.05). The increase in marginal staining in both groups over time was significant (p < 0.001). RMGIC restorations exhibited higher discoloration than RBC restorations (p = 0.014). At 72 months, three secondary caries lesions were detected in both restoration groups: two RMGIC and one RBC. There were no reports of sensitivity. After 72 months, both RBC and RMGIC restorations were clinically successful, with similar retention and marginal adaptation scores. However, it is noteworthy that RMGIC restorations tend to discoloration over time compared to RBC. The trial is registered in the database of "Clinical Trials". The registration number is NCT0372-2758, October 29, 2018.
dc.identifier.citationODONTOLOGY, cilt 113, 2024, sayı 1, ss. 404-415en
dc.identifier.issn1618-1247
dc.identifier.issue1en
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/11727/14987
dc.identifier.volume113en
dc.identifier.wos001243238000002en
dc.language.isoen_US
dc.publisherBaşkent Üniversitesi Diş Hekimliği Fakültesi
dc.sourceODONTOLOGYen
dc.subjectCervical caries
dc.subjectClinical trial
dc.subjectComposite resins
dc.subjectGlass ionomer cements
dc.subjectRoot caries
dc.titleLong-Term Clinical Comparison Of A Resin-Based Composite And Resin Modified Glass Ionomer In The Treatment Of Cervical Caries Lesions
dc.typeArticle

Files

Original bundle

Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
No Thumbnail Available
Name:
Kapalı Erişim.pdf
Size:
78 KB
Format:
Adobe Portable Document Format

License bundle

Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
No Thumbnail Available
Name:
license.txt
Size:
1.71 KB
Format:
Item-specific license agreed upon to submission
Description: