Comparison of Post-Operative Sensitivity of Resin Modified Glass Ionomer and Composite Restorations in Deciduous Molars
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.51253/pafmj.v76iSUPPL-10.3301Keywords:
Composite restoration, Pediatric dentistry, Postoperative sensitivity, Resin modified glass ionomerAbstract
Objective: To compare the post-operative sensitivity of Resin Modified Glass Ionomer and composite restorations in class II cavities of deciduous molars on 1st, 7th and 30th day.
Study Design: Prospective analytical study.
Place and Duration of Study: Operative Department of Armed Forces Institute of Dentistry, Rawalpindi, Pakistan from Jan 2019 to Jul 2019.
Methodology: A total of 300 class II cavities of deciduous molars of 100 cooperative children ranging from ages 4 to 10 years were selected. Half of the cavities were restored with RMGI and the rest were restored with Composite. The post-operative sensitivities on taking cold food and biting were jotted down on the proforma with patients’ bio data after 24 hours, 7 days and 30 days interval.
Results: The post-operative sensitivity results for composite and Resin Modified Glass Ionomer on 1ST, 7TH and 30th day were 16.7, 6.7%, 4.0% and 15.3%, 6.7% ,3.3% respectively with no statistical difference. The sensitivity for both materials decreased with passing time.
Conclusion: Both materials, Resin Modified Glass Ionomer and composite, demonstrated no significant difference in post-operative sensitivities on any of the days. Both proved to be the materials of choice in pediatric patients.
Downloads
References
1. Chisini L, Collares K, Cademartori M, de Oliveira L, Conde M, Demarco F, et al. Restorations in primary teeth: a systematic review on survival and reasons for failures. Int J Paediatr Dent 2018; 28(2): 123-139. https://doi.org/10.1111/ipd.12346
2. Ribeiro J, Forgerini T, Pedrotti D, Rocha R, Ardenghi T, Soares F et al. Performance of resin composite restorations in the primary dentition: a retrospective university-based study. Int. J. Paediatr. Dent 2018; 28(5): 497-503.
3. Dalpian DM , Gallina CS , Nicoloso GF, Araujo FB, Casagrande L. Patient- and treatment-related factors may influence the longevity of primary teeth restorations in high caries-risk children: A university-based retrospective study. Am J Dent 2018; 31(5): 261-266.
4. Ávila N, Bottezini P, Nicoloso G, Araujo F, Ardenghi T, Lenzi T, et al. Prevalence of defective restorations and factors associated with re‐intervention in primary teeth: A retrospective university‐based study. Int J Paediatr Dent 2019; 29(5): 566-572.
https://doi.org/10.1111/ipd.12493
5. Dermata A, Papageorgiou S, Fragkou S, Kotsanos N. Comparison of resin modified glass ionomer cement and composite resin in class II primary molar restorations: a 2-year parallel randomised clinical trial. European Archives of Paediatric Dentistry. 2018; 19(6): 393-401.
6. de Ávila NM, Bottezini PA, Nicoloso GF, de Araujo FB, Ardenghi TM, Lenzi TL, ET AL. Prevalence of defective restorations and factors associated with re-intervention in primary teeth: A retrospective university-based study. Int J Paediatr Dent 2019; 29(5): 566-572.
https://doi.org/ 10.1111/ipd.12493
7. Sidhu S. Clinical evaluations of resin-modified glass-ionomer restorations. Dent Mater J 2010; 26(1): 7-12.
8. Garoushi S, Vallittu P, Lassila L. Characterization of fluoride releasing restorative dental materials. Dent Mater J 2018; 37(2): 293-300.
9. Kupietzky A, Atia Joachim D, Tal E, Moskovitz M. Long-term clinical performance of heat-cured high-viscosity glass ionomer class II restorations versus resin-based composites in primary molars: a randomized comparison trial. Eur J Paediatr Dent 2019; 41(4): 264-270.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s40368-019-00423-x
10. Berkowitz G, Spielman H, Matthews A, Vena D, Craig R, Curro F, et al. Postoperative Hypersensitivity and Its Relationship to Preparation Variables in Class I Resin - Based Composite Restorations : Findings from the Practitioners Engaged in Applied Research and Learning ( PEARL ) Network . Part 1. Smile dent J 2014; 9(3): 37-37.
11. Kirilova J, Topalova-Pirinska S, Kirov D. Evaluation of impact of lining application techniques on marginal microleakage in resin-modified glass ionomer cement in class ii composite restorations: an in vitro study. J Int Med Assoc Bulgaria 2019; 25(1): 2426-2432.
12. Sear R, Rees J, Buller Z, Moore S. The feasibility of characterising the effects of dental post-operative discomfort and sensitivity over time. J Dent 2018; 72: 80-82.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2018.03.007
13. Miličević A, Goršeta K, van Duinen R, Glavina D. Surface Roughness of Glass Ionomer Cements after Application of Different Polishing Techniques. Acta Stomatol Croat 2018; 52(4): 314-321.
14. Briso A, Mestrener S, Delício G, Sundfeld R, Bedran-Russo A, de Alexandre R et al. Clinical Assessment of Postoperative Sensitivity in Posterior Composite Restorations. Oper Dent 2007; 32(5): 421-426.
15. Ayar MK. Postoperative sensitivity after placement of bulk-fill posterior restoration. J Res Med Dent Sci 2017; 5(3):53-58.
16. Sabbagh J, Fahd J, McConnell R. Post-operative sensitivity and posterior composite resin restorations: a review. Dental Update. 2018; 45(3): 207-213.
https://doi.org/10.12968/denu.2018.45.3.207
17. Weldon J, Yengopal V, Siegfried N, Gostemeyer G, Schwendicke F, Worthington H. Dental filling materials for managing carious lesions in the primary dentition. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. 2016(9) :CD012338 https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD012338
18. Sidhu S, Nicholson J. A Review of Glass-Ionomer Cements for Clinical Dentistry. J Funct Biomater 2016; 7(3): 16.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Mafaza Alam, Syed muzzamil Hussain shah, Laima Alam, Varqa Faraid, Hannan humayun Khan
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
How to Cite
