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 |
|
PubMed ID |
Author / Year |
Patient Group |
Study type
(level of evidence) |
11355096 | Folwaczny /2003 | 197 class V restorations placed by one dentist in 37 patients on incisors, canines and premolars. | Randomized Controlled Trial | Key results | After 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. | 16924979 | Franco/2006 | 22 oatients | Randomized Controlled Trial | Key results | Twenty-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 |
(General Dentistry) (Restorative Dentistry) |
Keywords |
resin modified glass ionomer, resin composite, class v restoration
|
ID# |
628 |
Date of submission |
04/02/2010 |
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 |
Carl W. Haveman, DDS |
Faculty mentor 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?) |
None available | |
|
Comments and Evidence-Based Updates on the CAT
(FOR PRACTICING DENTISTS', FACULTY, RESIDENTS and/or STUDENTS COMMENTS ON PUBLISHED CATs) |
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. | |