14 February 2024 : Review article
Clinical Performance of Glass Ionomer Cement in Load-Bearing Restorations: A Systematic Review
Laura Durrant
1ABCDEF, Mahdi Mutahar 1BCDEF*, Arwa A. Daghrery 2DFG, Nassreen H. Albar 2DFG, Ghadeer Saleh Alwadai 3EG, Saleh Ali Alqahtani 4DG, Laila Adel Al Dehailan 5DEG, Naif Nabel Abogazalah 4CG, Nada Ahmad Alamoudi 6DG, Mohammed M. Al Moaleem 7CFG
DOI: 10.12659/MSM.943489
Med Sci Monit 2024; 30:e943489
Table 1 Included studies with their title, year, author (s), outcomes, and Crowe Critical Appraisal Tool score.
| Title | Year | Author(s) | Research type | Findings | CCAT |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| A 3-year study on the performance of two glass-ionomer cements in Class II cavities of permanent teeth | 2019 | Fotiadou C, Frasheri I, Reymus M, Diegritz C, Kessler A, Manhart J, et al []45 | RCT | Both GIC tested performed similarly in Class II cavities with a moderate failure rate after 3 years | 78 |
| Evaluation of glass-Ionomer versus Bulk-Fill resin composite | 2022 | Uzel İ, Aykut-Yetkiner A, Ersin N, Ertuğrul F, Atila E, Özcan M []46 | RCT | Both GIC and RC were comparable, with good clinical performance after a 2-year recall | 73 |
| A five-year clinical trial to evaluate the clinical performance of high-viscosity glass ionomer restorative systems in small class II restorations | 2023 | Wafaie RA, Ibrahim Ali A, El-Negoly SAE, Mahmoud SH []47 | RCT | GIC provided successful clinical performance in small to medium-sized class II cavities compared to RC | 83 |
| Clinical evaluation of bulk-fill resins and glass ionomer restorative materials: A 1-year follow-up in children | 2020 | Akman H, Tosun G []48 | RCT | The EQUIA group exhibited minor changes after 1-year in marginal adaptation and retention, in contrast to the wholly good performance from RC | 80 |
| 10 years follow up of a glass ionomer restorative material in class I and class II cavities | 2019 | Gurgan S, Kutuk ZB, Yalcin Cakir F, Ergin E []49 | RCT | Both GIC and RC were comparable, with an acceptable clinical performance after a 10-year recall. | 78 |
| Evaluating the effectiveness of ART restorations with high-viscosity glass-ionomer cement versus conventional restorations with resin composite in Class II cavities of permanent teeth: two-year follow-up | 2021 | Menezes-Silva R, Velasco SRM, BRESCIANi E, Bastos RDS, Navarro MFL []50 | RCT | ART GIC restorations and RC conventional restorations had high-survival rates in class II cavities over 2-years | 78 |
| Clinical evaluation of microhybrid composite and glass ionomer restorative material in permanent teeth | 2018 | Kharma K, Zogheib T, Mehanna C []51 | RCT | GIC is an acceptable alternative to RC for restoring Class I cavities | 78 |
| Atraumatic restorative treatment compared to the Hall Technique for occluso-proximal carious lesions in primary molars; 36-month follow-up | 2020 | Araujo MP, Innes NP, Bonifácio CC, Hesse D, Olegário IC, Mendes FM, Raggio DP []52 | RCT | The GIC survival rate was three times lower than the SSC group. However, the GIC group were more greatly accepted by participants and parents | 70 |
| Comparison of resin-modified glass ionomer cement and composite resin in class II primary molar restorations | 2018 | Dermata A, Papageorgiou SN, Fragkou S, Kotsanos N []53 | RCT | Both RMGIC and RC were comparable, with good clinical performance after a 2-year recall | 70 |
| Long-term clinical performance of heat-cured high-viscosity glass ionomer Class II restorations versus resin-based composites in primary molars | 2019 | Kupietzky A, Atia Joachim D, Tal E, Moskovitz M []54 | RCT | Both GIC and RC were clinically successful after a 3-year recall. However, GIC was described a s an intermediate lasting restoration for proximal regions as RC showed higher success rate during same period | 75 |
| Class II ART high-viscosity glass-ionomer cement and conventional resin-composite restorations in permanent dentition: Two-year survival | 2020 | Molina GF, Ulloque MJ, Mazzola I, Mulder J, Frencken J []55 | RCT | ART GIC restorations and RC conventional restorations had high-survival rates in class II cavities over 2-years | 73 |
| Six-year results of a clinical trial of two glass ionomer cements in Class II cavities | 2020 | Heck K, Frasheri I, Diegritz C, Manhart J, Hickel R, Fotiadou C []56 | RCT | Both GIC showed acceptable and comparable survival rates after 6 years | 75 |
| RCT – randomised control trials. | |||||