Clinical evaluation of modified glass ionomer restorative materials

Abstract Aim To evaluate the clinical performance of Zirconomer, Cention N, and Equia Forte HT Fill in class I cavities along 1 year follow-up period. Patients and methods Eighteen patients were participated in this study with at least three occlusal carious lesions. A total of 54 posterior teeth were used that randomly divided into three equal groups according to restorative material as follow: group I (Zirconomer), group II (Cention N), and group III (Equia Forte HT Fill). Class I cavities were prepared according to principles of minimally invasive dentistry. Each material was applied according to manufacture instructions and was clinically evaluated at baseline, after 6 months, and 12 months using modified United States Public Health Service Criteria. Results A highly statistically significant difference was found among the three tested groups ( P = 000) for all the tested criteria. All groups showed 100% Alpha score for all tested criteria at baseline and after 6 months except for postoperative sensitivity of group II where 50% of restorations recorded Bravo scores at baseline. Marginal discoloration, loss of marginal adaptation, loss of anatomic form and secondary caries were observed after 12 months in group I only. While surface texture loss was observed in both group I and III after 12 months. Conclusion All the tested materials showed satisfactory clinical performance regarding the studied clinical parameters except for secondary caries and surface texture of Zirconomer. Cention N exhibited better results followed by Equia Forte HT Fill then Zirconomer.