10 year comparison of glass ionomer and composite resin restoration materials in class 1 and 2 cavities

Data sources A prospective randomised, double-blinded controlled trial Study selection Those requiring routine dental care in Sihhiye, Turkey were eligible to participate. Eighty-seven participants were identified and assessed for eligibility by calibrated researchers who ensured that the inclusion and exclusion criteria were met. Fifty-nine participants were successfully recruited with an average age of 24 years (range 15-37). Restoration type were randomly allocated [glass ionomer (GI) or composite resin (CR)] using a table of random numbers with software 'Research Randomised Program' and four experimental groups were created. Two dentists with 5 years experience were calibrated by them placing ten trial restorations , which were not included in the study. One hundred and forty restorations were then placed adhering to a strict treatment protocol. Cavities which did not meet the specifications of the criteria were excluded. The study received ethical approval by the Human Ethics in Clinical Research Committee of the University. Data extraction and synthesis Restorations were assessed at baseline (1 week), 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8 and 10 years by blinded calibrated examiners with the aid of colour photographs using an objective criteria. Scanning electron microscopy (SEM) analysis was performed for one randomly selected restoration per group at each assessment. Data analysis adhered to the intention-to-treat CONSORT protocol. The restoration retention rates were calculated, and statistical analysis preformed using IBM SPSS version 22.0. The performance of the restorative materials over the study period were analysed with Cochran's Q test, according to USPHS criteria. Whilst the McNemar test was used to assess aspects of each material with baseline for each cavity type in addition to difference between cavity types. Marginal adaption, marginal discolouration and colour scores in each study group were compared with the p value set at 0.05. Results Eighty-seven patients with 203 lesions were included in the study, with 59 (140 lesions) eligible. Eleven patients were excluded for not meeting the inclusion/ exclusion criteria with 17 refusing to participate. Four randomly allocated groups were created at baseline, as combinations of cavity type and restorative material. 86.4% (n=51) of participants were evaluated after 10 years. The cumulative failure rate (CRF) was 3.17%. Marginal discolouration was observed in all groups at 10 years. With a significant difference observed between Class I and Class II cavities with GI restorations (p = 0.022). In addition, a significant change in colour match in GI restorations after 10 years(<0.005) was found. Over the ten-year period, no significant change was observed in terms of marginal adaption, anatomical form, secondary caries, postoperative sensitivity, surface texture, and retention for either restorative material (p >0.05) or with SEM inspections. Conclusions Both GI and CR are suitable and similar restorative materials for class 1 and class 2 cavities. However, differences can occur in colour change within the materials with glass ionomer restorations showing greater colour change from baseline over this period. © 2019, British Dental Association.