Clinical evaluation of occlusal glass ionomer, resin, and amalgam restorations

• Published in: Journal of dentistry Vol. 18; no. 5; pp. 243 - 249
• Main Authors: Smales, R.J., Gerke, D.C., White, I.L.
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: England Elsevier Ltd 01.10.1990
• Subjects: Adult; Amalgam; Analysis of Variance; Cermet Cements; Clinical trial; Composite Resins - chemistry; Dental Alloys - chemistry; Dental Amalgam - chemistry; Dental Bonding; Dental Polishing; Dental Restoration, Permanent; Dentistry; Glass Ionomer Cements - chemistry; Humans; Polyalkenoate (glass ionomer) cermets; Posterior composites; Quartz - chemistry; Surface Properties; Time Factors; Posterior composites; Clinical trial; Amalgam; Polyalkenoate (glass ionomer) cermets
• ISSN: 0300-5712; 1879-176X
• DOI: 10.1016/0300-5712(90)90021-6

The purpose of the study was to evaluate four materials (a glass ionomer (polyalkenoate) silver cermet, two composite resin restoratives and a high copper content dental amalgam) placed in either conventional Class I cavities or in modified odontotomy-enameloplasty-sealant (OES) fissure preparations. One experienced operator inserted 438 occlusal, Class I restorations in the posterior permanent teeth of 124 patients in a private dental practice. Restorations were assessed for bulk loss of material, surface voids and cracking, restoration margin fractures and staining, and surface staining and roughness, by using colour transparencies taken at baseline and at recalls for up to 3 years. The glass ionomer cermet was the most difficult material to handle and also gave the least satisfactory clinical result. Loss of material and surface voids were common in the cermet restorations with surface cracking or crazing being seen in 11.4 per cent of the restorations, especially in the larger, conventional Class I preparations. One posterior resin was more viscous and difficult to handle than the other resin and exhibited more surface voids. The amalgam alloy was used in Class I preparations only and showed more restoration margin fractures and surface staining than did the other three materials. However, there were no unsatisfactory clinical assessments given for either restoration margin fracture and staining, or surface staining and roughness for any of the materials. Patient acceptance of the modified OES fissure preparation was extremely good.