Related Experiment Video
Updated: Apr 1, 2026
Quasistatic Mechanical Testing for Computer-Aided Design and Manufacturing Occlusal Veneers Cemented to Milled Dentin Analog Material
Published on: December 20, 2024
Comparison of Post-Cementation Sensitivity Between Resin Modified Glass Ionomer Cement and Conventional Glass Ionomer
Shamsul Alam1, Naveed Sadiq2, Hend Mohamed Elsayed3,4
1Department of Public Health, Khyber Medical University, Peshawar, Pakistan.
Objective:
To compare post-cementation sensitivity between resin-modified glass ionomer cement (RMGIC) and conventional glass ionomer cement (GIC) used as luting agents for single crowns.
Materials And Methods:
This randomized controlled trial was conducted at Saidu College of Dentistry, Swat, Pakistan. A total of 496 eligible participants were randomized into two groups: GIC (n = 248) and RMGIC (n = 248). Post-cementation sensitivity was recorded at 24 h, 1 week, and 1 month using a 10-point visual analog scale (VAS), with scores categorized as no, mild, moderate, or severe sensitivity. Data were analyzed using Mann-Whitney U tests, and linear mixed-effects models adjusted for age, gender, jaw, and prosthesis location.
Results:
Baseline demographic and clinical characteristics were comparable between groups. Post-cementation sensitivity was consistently lower in the RMGIC group compared to the GIC group across all time points. Median sensitivity scores at 24 h were 4.0 (GIC) versus 3.0 (RMGIC, p < 0.001); at 1 week, 2.0 versus 1.0 (p < 0.001); and at 1 month, both minimal but significantly lower in the RMGIC group (p < 0.001). The adjusted mixed-effects model confirmed that RMGIC significantly reduced sensitivity compared to GIC (β = -0.53; OR 0.59, 95% CI 0.46-0.75; p < 0.001). Sensitivity was highest at 24 h (β = 2.96; OR 19.3, 95% CI 15.3-24.3; p < 0.001), followed by 1 week (β = 0.81; OR 2.25, 95% CI 1.77-2.86; p < 0.001), and declined markedly by 1 month. Age showed a modest protective effect (β = -0.008; OR 0.99, 95% CI 0.99-1.00; p = 0.04), while gender, jaw, and prosthesis location were not significant predictors. A significant interaction at 24 h showed RMGIC provided an additional reduction in sensitivity compared to GIC (β = -0.83; OR 0.44, 95% CI 0.31-0.61; p < 0.001).
Conclusion:
RMGIC demonstrated significantly lower post-cementation sensitivity compared to conventional GIC.
Trial Registration:
This trial was retrospectively registered with Clinical Trials Registry of ClinicalTrials.gov(registration#NCT07102121) on August 3, 2025.
Related Concept Videos
01:17Soundness of Cement
01:20Strength of Cement
For compressive strength tests, ASTM C 109-05 standards prescribe a cement-sand mix ratio of 1:2.75 and a water/cement ratio of 0.485 for making 2-inch cubes. These cubes are mixed, cast, and cured in saturated lime water at 23°C until testing. Flexural strength testing, outlined in...
01:21Types of Cement I
Type I (Ordinary Portland Cement) is widely used for general construction where special properties are not required. It has moderate sulfate resistance and heat of hydration.
Type II (Modified Cement) offers moderate resistance to sulfate attack and a lower rate of heat development compared to Type I. It is suitable for structures in...
01:22Types of Cement II
01:18Porosity in Cement Paste
The balance of water to cement in the mix is...
01:12Setting Time of Cement