View the CAT printer-friendly / share this CAT
Title Resin Modified Glass Ionomer Restorations Placed in Non-Carious Cervical Lesions Have Similar if Not Better Retention Rates Than Resin Composites
Clinical Question For a patient with a non-carious class V restoration, how does the failure rate for resin modified glass ionomer restorations compare to resin composite restorations?
Clinical Bottom Line With limited evidence being available, retention of RMGI restorations for non-carious cervical lesions appear to outperform RC ones. (See Comments on the CAT below)
Best Evidence (you may view more info by clicking on the PubMed ID link)
PubMed ID Author / Year Patient Group Study type
(level of evidence)
#1) 11355096Folwaczny /2003197 class V restorations placed by one dentist in 37 patients on incisors, canines and premolars.Randomized Controlled Trial
Key resultsAfter 36 months there was no statistical difference between the retention of the resin modified glass ionomers and resin composites used. At the end of the study one resin composite restoration (Tetric) and five resin modified glass ionomer restorations (two Fuji II LC and three Photac) were lost.
#2) 16924979Franco/200622 oatientsRandomized Controlled Trial
Key resultsTwenty-two patients were evaluated after 5 years (73.3% recall rate) and 55 out of 70 restorations were evaluated. When Comparing both materials, the Fisher exact test revealed significant differences in retention (p=0.002) after 5 years of clinical service with the RMGI being superior.
Evidence Search resin modified glass ionomer and resin composite and cervical
Comments on
The Evidence
The clinical trials extended 18 months or more. One double blind study was performed and intra-examiner results were compared.
Applicability The results are applicable to any patient requiring restoration of non-carious cervical lesions.
Specialty/Discipline (General Dentistry) (Restorative Dentistry)
Keywords resin modified glass ionomer, resin composite, class v restoration
ID# 628
Date of submission: 04/02/2010spacer Revised: 12/03/2012
E-mail pricej@livemail.uthscsa.edu
Author Jarred Price
Co-author(s) Sarah Kinard
Co-author(s) e-mail kinardS@livemail.uthscsa.edu
Faculty mentor/Co-author Carl W. Haveman, DDS
Faculty mentor/Co-author e-mail HAVEMAN@uthscsa.edu
Basic Science Rationale
(Mechanisms that may account for and/or explain the clinical question, i.e. is the answer to the clinical question consistent with basic biological, physical and/or behavioral science principles, laws and research?)
post a rationale
None available
Comments and Evidence-Based Updates on the CAT
post a comment
by James and Vincent Ho (San Antonio, TX) on 08/17/2013
We conducted a PubMed search on this topic in August 2013. We found a 2-year controlled clinical trial published in 2010 (Santiago, PMID # 21203706 ) that compared a one bottle etch-and-rinse adhesive and composite system with a resin modified glass ionomer in non-carious cervical lesions. It had a similar conclusion to this CAT, that resin modified glass ionomers have superior retention in non-carious cervial lesions.

Return to Found CATs list