The assessment of internal adaptation and fracture resistance of glass ionomer and resin-based restorative materials applied after different caries removal techniques in primary teeth: an in-vitro study


PEERJ, vol.11, 2023 (SCI-Expanded) identifier identifier identifier

  • Publication Type: Article / Article
  • Volume: 11
  • Publication Date: 2023
  • Doi Number: 10.7717/peerj.14825
  • Journal Name: PEERJ
  • Journal Indexes: Science Citation Index Expanded (SCI-EXPANDED), Scopus, BIOSIS, CAB Abstracts, EMBASE, Veterinary Science Database, Directory of Open Access Journals
  • Keywords: Compomer, Glass ionomer, Firm dentin, Primary teeth, Selective caries removal, BULK-FILL COMPOSITE, INTERVENTION DENTISTRY, MICROLEAKAGE, PERFORMANCE, CAVITIES, CEMENTS
  • Ankara University Affiliated: Yes


Background: The aim of this study was to evaluate the 3-dimensional (3D) internal adaptation (IA) and fracture resistance (FR) of compomer and glass ionomers applied after conventional caries removal to sound dentin (CCRSD) and selective caries removal to firm dentin (SCRFD) in in-vitro.Methods: Thirty extracted primary molars were randomly assigned to three main groups (n = 10) as glass hybrid restorative (GHR) (Equia Forte (R) HT), conventional glass ionomer (CGIR) (Voco Ionofil Molar) and compomer (Dyract XP). Each group was randomly divided into two subgroups according to caries removal technique as CCRSD (n = 5) and SCRFD (n = 5). The restoration procedures were completed after caries removal (CCRSD or SCRFD) in all samples. Then, specimens were subjected to IA and FR tests. Data were analyzed with Student's t, one-way ANOVA, and Kruskal Wallis-H tests. The correlation between IA and FR results was analyzed with a Pearson test. The statistical significance level was considered as 5%. Results: While CCRSD showed superior IA results than SCRFD for all restorative materials (p < 0.05), no statistical difference was found between CCRSD and SCRFD in FR assessment (p > 0.05). In CCRSD, compomer showed superior results for IA and FR than glass ionomers (p < 0.05). In SCRFD, it was found no significant difference between the restoratives for IA (p > 0.05). However, compomer showed superior FR results than glass ionomers (p < 0.05). There was moderate negative correlation between internal voids and FR without statistically significant difference (r = -0.333, p = 0.072). Conclusions: Despite the advantages of SCRFD, it was found to be less superior than CCRSD in IA assessment. Therefore, when SCRFD is preferred, a peripheral seal should be provided for ideal restorative treatment. On the other hand, compomer mostly showed superior results compared to others.