5-year clinical performance of resin composite versus resin modified glass ionomer restorative system in non-carious cervical lesions.

AIM

To comparatively assess the 5-year clinical performance of a 1-bottle adhesive and resin composite system with a resin-modified glass ionomer restorative in non-carious cervical lesions.

METHOD AND MATERIALS

One operator placed 70 restorations (35 resin modified glass ionomer restorations and 35 resin composite restorations) in 30 patients under rubber dam isolation without mechanical preparation. The restorations were directly assessed by 2 independent examiners, using modified USPHS criteria at baseline and 6, 12, 24 and 60 months.

RESULTS

Twenty-two patients were available for recall after 5 years (73.3% recall rate) and 55 out of 70 restorations were evaluated. Excellent agreement was registered for all criteria between examiners (kappa > or = 0.85). Sixteen composite restorations were dislodged (51.5% retention) and 1 ionomer restoration was lost (96.4% retention). The McNemar test detected significant differences in resin composite restorations between baseline and 5-year recall for marginal integrity (p<0.001) and retention (p=0.004). For resin modified glass ionomer restorations, no significant differences were identified for all criteria (p>0.05). When comparing both materials, the Fisher exact test pointed out significant differences in retention (p=0.002) after 5 years of clinical service.

CONCLUSIONS

After 5 years of evaluation, the clinical performance of resin modified glass ionomer restorations was superior to resin composite restorations.