Related Experiment Video
Updated: Mar 10, 2026
Quasistatic Mechanical Testing for Computer-Aided Design and Manufacturing Occlusal Veneers Cemented to Milled Dentin Analog Material
Published on: December 20, 2024
In vitro Comparative Evaluation of Various Restorative Materials used for restoring Class III Cavities in Deciduous
Harsh Priyank1, Ankita Verma2, Komal Gupta3
1Department of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics Hazaribagh college of Dental Sciences and Hospital, Hazaribag Jharkhand, India Phone: +919501544877,
Introduction:
Beauty standards in today's modernized world scenario are formed by well-aligned and well-designed bright white teeth. One of the major reasons behind patients reporting to dental clinics is pain. Caries in the anterior primary teeth forms one of the major concerns from a restorative point of view. Very few studies are quoted in literature which stresses on the follow-up of anterior restorations in primary teeth. Hence, we evaluated and compared the efficacy of composite resin and resin-modified glass ionomer cement (RGIC) for class III restorations in primary anterior teeth.
Materials And Methods:
The present study was conducted in the pediatric dental wing and included a total of 80 patients aged 3 to 5½ years who reported with the chief complaint of carious lesions in the primary anterior teeth. Patients having minimal of a pair of similar appearing small carious lesions on the same proximal surfaces of the deciduous maxillary incisors were included for the study. All the patients were randomly divided into two groups: One in which RGIC restoration was done and other in which composite restoration was done. Cavity preparation was done and filling of the cavity with the restorative materials was carried out. Assessment of the restorations was done at 4, 8, and 12 months time following criteria given by Ryge et al. All the results were analyzed by Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) software. Mann-Whitney test and one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) were used to evaluate the level of significance; p value less than 0.05 was considered as significant.
Results:
For composite and RGIC restorations, the mean score for anatomic shape was 1.21 and 1.10 respectively. While comparing the clinical parameters, nonsignificant results were obtained between composite and RGIC restorative materials at 4-, 8-, and 12-month interval. On comparing the clinical parameters for individual restorative materials at different time intervals, statistically significant results were obtained only for anatomical shape and form.
Conclusion:
Both RGIC and composite resin restorative materials showed acceptable clinical outcomes after 12 months of follow-up in deciduous anterior teeth. In restoring class III restorations in primary anterior teeth, both the restorative materials showed similar outcome.
Clinical Significance:
Keywords: Composite, Marginal, Resin-modified glass ionomer cement.
