Comparison of Post‐Cementation Sensitivity Between Resin Modified Glass Ionomer Cement and Conventional Glass Ionomer Cement as a Luting Material—A Randomized Clinical Trial

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.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Clinical and Experimental Dental Research
Published
2026-03-31
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1002/cre2.70339
Primary Topic
Dental materials and restorations
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Comparison of Post‐Cementation Sensitivity Between Resin Modified Glass Ionomer Cement and Conventional Glass Ionomer Cement as a Luting Material—A Randomized Clinical Trial

Naveed Sadiq, Asif Rehman, Sheema Shakir, Hend Mohamed Elsayed et al.
Clinical and Experimental Dental Research
Dental materials and restorations
article

Comparison of Post‐Cementation Sensitivity Between Resin Modified Glass Ionomer Cement and Conventional Glass Ionomer Cement as a Luting Material—A Randomized Clinical Trial

Naveed Sadiq, Asif Rehman, Sheema Shakir, Hend Mohamed Elsayed, Nasser Hussein Shaheen, Ahmed Mohammed Elmarakby, Shamsul Alam
article en

Abstract

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.

Clinical and Experimental Dental ResearchVol. 12(2)
Khyber Medical College (PK), Cairo University (EG), Al-Azhar University (EG), Khyber Medical University (PK), Dar Al Uloom University (SA), Bath Spa University (GB)
Openalex Percentile: Top 38%
Dental materials and restorations
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.