Randomized clinical trial of two resin-modified glass ionomer materials: 1-year results

With institutional review board approval, 33 patients who needed restoration of noncarious cervical lesions (NCCL) were enrolled in this study. A total of 92 NCCL were selected and randomly assigned to three groups: (1) Ambar (FGM), a two-step etch-and-rinse adhesive (control), combined with the nanofilled composite resin Filtek Supreme Plus (FSP; 3M ESPE); (2) Fuji II LC (GC America), a traditional resin-modified glass ionomer (RMGIC) restorative material; (3) Ketac Nano (3M ESPE), a nanofilled RMGIC restorative material. Restorations were evaluated at six months and one year using modified United States Public Health Service parameters. At six months after initial placement, 84 restorations (a 91.3% recall rate) were evaluated. At one year, 78 restorations (a 84.8% recall rate) were available for evaluation. The six month and one year overall retention rates were 93.1% and 92.6%, respectively, for Ambar/FSP; 100% and 100%, respectively, for Fuji II LC; and 100% and 100%, respectively, for Ketac Nano with no statistical difference between any pair of groups at each recall. Sensitivity to air decreased for all three adhesive materials from the preoperative to the postoperative stage, but the difference was not statistically significant. For Ambar/FSP, there were no statistical differences for any of the parameters from baseline to six months and from baseline to one year. For Fuji II LC, surface texture worsened significantly from baseline to six months and from baseline to one year. For Ketac Nano, enamel marginal staining increased significantly from baseline to one year and from six months to one year. Marginal adaptation was statistically worse at one year compared with baseline only for Ketac Nano. When parameters were compared for materials at each recall, Ketac Nano resulted in significantly worse color match than any of the other two materials at any evaluation period. At one year, Ketac Nano resulted in significantly worse marginal adaptation than the other two materials and worse marginal staining than Fuji II LC. Surface texture was statistically worse for Fuji II LC compared with the other two materials at all evaluation periods. The one-year retention rate was statistically similar for the three adhesive materials. Nevertheless, enamel marginal deficiencies and color mismatch were more prevalent for Ketac Nano. Surface texture of Fuji II LC restorations deteriorated quickly.