Clinical evaluation of four different dental restorative materials: one-year results

The purpose of the present study conducted in a school in Lebanon was to evaluate the one-year clinical performance of a polyacid-modified resin composite (PMC), a resin-modified glass ionomer cement (RMGIC), a high viscosity GIC (HVGIC) and an amalgam (Amlg). Hundred and forty-nine class I and class II cavities in 45 patients aged 6 to 8 years, with a high caries risk activity, were restored with these materials. Restorations were evaluated by two examiners at baseline, 6 and 12 months, according to USPHS criteria. Evaluation at 12 months showed that the retention of materials in class I and class II restorations in primary teeth was good. The recall rate was 97.4%. None of the restorations were clinically unacceptable, except for those with secondary caries (9/138). RMGIC gave the best results. At one year, RMGIC had the highest percentage of intact marginal integrity. Marginal discoloration in PMC restorations compared to Amlg restorations was statistically more important (p = 0.013). Secondary caries in HVGIC restorations, compared to Amlg restorations, were higher (p = 0.013). Clinical performance of the 3 restorative materials compared to Amlg in class I and class II cavities at one-year recall is not uniform. The results suggest that RMGIC is a suitable alternative to Amlg for restorations in primary teeth. Restrictions should be considered for the materials with more secondary caries (HVGIC) and higher marginal discoloration (PMC).