Adhesive Performance of Glass Ionomer and Resin Based Adhesive Systems: A 3 Years Prospective Clinical Evaluation

Adhesive Performance of Glass Ionomer Versus Resin Based Adhesive Systems

Status

Completed

Phases

Study type

Interventional

Source

ClinicalTrials.gov

Registry ID

NCT05161559

Enrollment

Registered

2021-12-17

Start date

2018-08-30

Completion date

2021-10-30

Last updated

2021-12-17

For informational purposes only — not medical advice. Sourced from public registries and may not reflect the latest updates. Terms

Conditions

Dental Leakage

Keywords

Resin Composite, Randomized Clinical Trial, Operative Dentistry

Brief summary

This study aimed to clinically evaluate the 3-years clinical performance of glass ionomer and resin based adhesive systems in Class V restorations.

Detailed description

The formulated null hypothesis was that there is no significant difference in the clinical performances between glass ionomer and resin based adhesive systems in Class V restorations for 3-years. The research question was as follows: Do glass ionomer adhesives in class V restorations present better clinical performances than resin based adhesive systems according to the modified United States Public Health Service (modified-USPHS) criteria?

Interventions

PROCEDUREEtching with phosphoric acid gel (3M ESPE, St. Paul, MN, USA)

Etching enamel surface using phosphoric acid gel (3M ESPE, St. Paul, MN, USA)

PROCEDURESelf-etch adhesive (Kuraray, Tokyo, Japan)

No Etching enamel surface using phosphoric acid (self-etch technique) (Kuraray, Tokyo, Japan)

PROCEDUREChemical bond adhesive (GC, Corporation, Tokyo, Japan)

Chemical bond with hydroxyapatite crystals of Enamel (GC, Corporation, Tokyo, Japan)

Study design

Allocation

RANDOMIZED

Intervention model

CROSSOVER

Primary purpose

TREATMENT

Masking

TRIPLE (Subject, Caregiver, Investigator)

Eligibility

Sex/Gender

ALL

Age

20 Years to 35 Years

Healthy volunteers

Yes

Inclusion criteria

1. Patients with primary caries involving cervical surface only with ICDAS 2 and 3. 2. Patients with normal and full occlusion. 3. Patients with tooth gives positive response to testing with an electric pulp tester. 4. Patients must have a good oral hygiene. 5. Patients with opposing teeth should be natural with no restorations.

Exclusion criteria

1. High caries risk patients with extremely poor oral hygiene. 2. Patients involved in orthodontic treatment or periodontal surgery. 3. Patients with periodontally involved teeth (chronic periodontitis). 4. Patients with heavy bruxism habits and clenching. 5. Patients with abutments should be excluded.

Design outcomes

Primary

Measure	Time frame	Description
Percentage % of patients with marginal staining	3 years after restoration procedure	Percentage of marginal staining in patients was clinically assessed using USPHS criteria. Restorations were given the score Alpha for the ideal clinical situation, Bravo for clinically acceptable and Charlie for clinically unacceptable and in need for replacement.

Countries

Egypt

Outcome results

None listed

Source: ClinicalTrials.gov · Data processed: Feb 4, 2026