Article information
Year 2019 Volume 69 Issue 2 Page 185-197
Title:
Success Rate of Altered Resin Modified Glass-ionomer Cement Restorations on Teeth with Partial Caries Removal at 6 Months
Keyword(s):
Partial caries removal, Conventional glass-ionomer cement, Resin modified glass-ionomer cement, Primary molar, Caries
Abstract:
Restorative material that has good and appropriate properties may increase the success rate of partial
caries removal restorations. The objective of this study was to assess and compare success rates of encapsulated
conventional glass-ionomer cement (GIC: Fuji IX GP® Extra Capsule) and Bulk fill altered resin modified glass-ionomer
cement (RMGIC: ActivaTM BioACTIVE-RESTORATIVETM) on partial caries removal to DEJ in primary molars at the 6-month
follow-up. Two hundred and sixteen healthy children aged 5-9 years old with occlusal caries (ICDAS scored 5) on
a primary molar were enrolled in the randomized controlled trial. Children were randomly allocated into one of 2
groups: the control group (GIC) and the experiment group (RMGIC). For all selected teeth, partial soft caries removal
at the dentin-enamel junction (0.5 millimeter from DEJ) was performed by a spoon excavator. Cavities were restored
with materials according to the assigned studies groups. Clinical evaluation for modified ART codes, secondary
caries, signs and symptoms, and radiographic examinations were conducted at the 6-month follow-up. The
chi-square test for per-protocol and intention-to-treat analyses was performed. The success rates of restorations in
the control and experiment groups when using the acceptable cutoff level of the modified ART codes (acceptable:
code 0/1) with clinical and radiographic findings were 95.5 % and 87.6 %, respectively. There was no statistically
significant difference in the success rates of restorations between the two groups (p>0.05). However, analysis using
the “good level” of the modified ART codes cutoff (good: code 0) found that the control group had statistically
significantly higher success rate than the experiment group (92.0 %vs.77.3 %) (p<0.01). The main reason for failure
after 6 months was marginal defects. Thus, comparison using the “good level” cutoff showed that the encapsulated
conventional GIC group had a higher success rate compared with bulk fill altered RMGIC in partial caries removal cavities.