GLASSIONOMER CEMENT FOR PERMANENT DENTAL RESTORATIONS: A 48-MONTHS,
MULTI-CENTRE, PROSPECTIVE CLINICAL TRIAL
Table 5 Chippings of restorations according to cavity class and number of restoration surfaces
(number of chippings / total number of specific restorations)
No. of surfaces
Incisors
Canines
Premolars
Molars
1
1/23 (4,35%)
3/59 (5,08%)
2
1/28 (3,57%)
4/30 (13,33%)
3
0/19 (0%)
3/24 (12,5%)
4+
4/18 (22,22%)
7/31 (22,58%)
Class V
0/13 (0%)
3/14 (21,43%)
7/36 (19,44%)
3/9 (33,33%)
Total Chippings
0/13 (0%)
3/14 (21,43%)
13/124 (10,48%)
20/153
(13,07%)
Table 6 Failures of restorations according to cavity class and number of restoration surfaces (number
of failures / total number of specific restorations)
No. of surfaces
Incisors
Canines
Premolars
Molars
1
1/23 (4,35%)
0/59 (0%)
2
0/28 (0%)
4/30 (13,33%)
3
1/19 (5,26%)
1/24 (4,17%)
4+
5/18 (27,78)
4/31 (12,9%)
V class
2/13 (15,38%)
3/14 (21,43%)
3/36 (8,33%)
2/9 (22,22%)
Total Failures
2/13 (15,38%)
3/14 (21,43%)
10/124 (8,06%)
11/153 (7,19%)
Considering the integrity of restorations (code =
0, Table 1), 36 restorations have been recorded as
“chipped” (less than 1 mm of marginal damage,
codes 1 or 2). Added to the 26 failed restorations
(code > 2), a total of 62 restorations were not
considered for the General Integrity Rate (GIR).
Overall data for GSR and GIR are presented in
Figure 6.
The restorations performed were also evaluated
considering their success related to vitality of the
restored tooth, and optional use of dental dam
(Table 7). There was no statistical difference in
failure rate for both parameters of vitality and use
of dental dam.
No significant differences were found among
the four different trained operators in terms
of outcomes, failure rates and chippings of
restorations.
There were no reported side effects or allergies
against the tested glassionomer cement or lightcuring acrylic resin after their application. Patients
did not report dentinal hypersensitivity, even
after replacement of previous dental amalgams.
Analyzing the impressions and opinions reported
by patients through the questionnaire, the surface
of performed glassionomer restorations has been
perceived by patients as “very smooth” at the end
of procedures. Many patients reported a strong
smell and taste of the coating agent while applying
it, due to solvents and to its acrylic nature. Once
polymerized, this problem disappeared.
11.88% of patients (24 of 202) declared the
presence of rough surfaces on the restorations
at 12 months, 22.28% (45 of 202) at 24 months,
25.25% (51 of 202) at 36 months, 30.69% (62 of 202)
at 48 months. No rough surfaces were declared
to be present at the baseline. In the majority of
cases (74.19% 46 patients of 62 declaring rough
surfaces), the sensation was referred to class V
restorations.
Overall, patients were generally satisfied with the
restorations, when they were asked to evaluate
them from both a mechanical and a functional
point of view. Most of them (84.16%, 170 of
202) declared to be “completely satisfied”.
Regarding the 15.84% of non-satisfied patients,
the problems reported were roughness, failures,
presence of marginal stains, chipping and
aesthetic aspect of restoration.
No loss in pulp vitality has been recorded during
the duration of the study.
Moreover, regarding the