STM Journals Peer-reviewed research from Consortium e-Learning Network

Journal of Polymer & Composites Original Research Special issue

A Retrospective Analysis of Resin-Based Polymer Composites and Bioactive Glass-Polymer Hybrids Regarding Secondary Caries and Durability

  1. NajiyaV.P. Department of Orthodontics, Saveetha Dental College and Hospitals, Saveetha institute of medical and technical sciences, Saveetha university, 162, Poonamallee high road, Chennai
  2. Remmiya Mary Varghese Department of Orthodontics, Saveetha Dental College and Hospitals, Saveetha Institute of Medical and Technical Science, Saveetha University, Chennai
  3. Shrishti Kumawat Department of Conservative dentistry and Endodontics, Arya medical college and hospital, Omaxe City, Ajmer Road, Jaipur
  4. Charu Sharma Department of General Dentistry, Private Practitioner, Trusmile Dental Clinic, Chandkheda, Ahmedabad
  5. Gaini Mounika Department of Conservative dentistry and Endodontics. Narayana dental college and hospital, chintareddypalem, Nellore
  6. Mohan Rawat Department of Periodontics, KD Dental college, Mathura

Abstract

Aim- To compare the 2-year clinical survival and failure modes of a Resin-Based Polymer Composites and BioactiveGlass-Polymer Hybrids in Class I and II posterior restorations. Methods-A total of 550 restorations were placed in adult patients across various private dental practices in India to ensure a diverse clinical demographic. Teeth were randomly assigned and restored with either a hybrid composite (Te-Econom, IvoclarVivadent; n=275) or a Resin-Modified Glass Ionomer Cement (GC Gold Label 2 LC, GC Corp; n=275). Clinical performance was monitored over a 24-month period using Modified USPHS criteria. Statistical analysis of restoration survival was performed using Kaplan-Meier estimators, while the influence of material type on failure risk was determined via Cox regression models (p < 0.05). Results- At 2 years, the overall survival rate was higher for RC (95.6%) compared to RMGIC (91.3%), a difference approaching significance (p=0.054) RMGIC was significantly more prone to mechanical failure (fracture) than RC (4.0% vs. 0.7%; p=0.007). Conversely, RMGIC demonstrated a protective trend against biological failure, with lower incidence of secondary caries (1.5%) compared to RC (2.5%), though this did not reach statistical significance (p=0.306). Conclusion- While RMGIC demonstrated potential bioactive benefits in reducing secondary caries risk, its clinical longevity in load-bearing posterior teeth is compromised by lower fracture resistance. Conventional resin composite remains the mechanically superior choice for Class I and II restorations

Keywords

References (14)

  1. Díaz-Garrido N, Lozano C, Giacaman RA. Frequency of sucrose exposure on the cariogenicity of a biofilm-caries model. European Journal of Dentistry. 2016;10(03):345-350. doi:10.4103/1305-7456.184163
  2. Goldstein GR. The Longevity of Direct and Indirect Posterior Restorations is Uncertain and may be Affected by a Number of Dentist-, Patient-, and Material-Related Factors. Journal of Evidence Based Dental Practice. 2010;10(1):30-31. doi:10.1016/j.jebdp.2009.11.015
  3. Sheiham A, James WPT. Diet and Dental Caries. Journal of Dental Research. 2015;94(10):1341-1347. doi:10.1177/0022034515590377
  4. Tsujimoto A, Barkmeier WW, Fischer NG, Nojiri K, Nagura Y, Takamizawa T, et al. Wear of resin composites: Current insights into underlying mechanisms, evaluation methods and influential factors. Japanese Dental Science Review. 2018;54(2):76-87. doi:10.1016/j.jdsr.2017.11.002
  5. El-Adl ET, Ebaya MM, Habib ESE, Zaghloul NM. Comparative measurement of short-term fluoride release and inhibition of caries around restoration by ion releasing restorative materials: an in vitro study. Scientific Reports. 2025;15(1). doi:10.1038/s41598-024-78918-x
  6. Khvostenko D, Hilton TJ, Ferracane JL, Mitchell JC, Kruzic JJ. Bioactive glass fillers reduce bacterial penetration into marginal gaps for composite restorations. Dental Materials. 2016;32(1):73-81. doi:10.1016/j.dental.2015.10.007
  7. Opdam, N. J., et al. (2014). Longevity of posterior composite restorations: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Dental Research, 93(10), 943–949.
  8. Heintze SD, Rousson V. Clinical effectiveness of direct class II restorations - a meta-analysis. J Adhes Dent. 2012 Aug;14(5):407–31. doi:10.3290/j.jad.a28390. PMID: 23082310.
  9. Pinto NS, Jorge GR, Vasconcelos J, Probst LF, De-Carli AD, Freire A. Clinical efficacy of bioactive restorative materials in controlling secondary caries: a systematic review and network meta-analysis. BMC Oral Health. 2023;23(1). doi:10.1186/s12903-023-03110-y
  10. Schwendicke, F., et al. (2016). Secondary caries and marginal adaptation of ion-releasing versus composite restorations: A systematic review.
  11. Mickenautsch, S., &Yengopal, V. (2016). Caries-preventive effect of glass ionomer and resin-based fissure sealants on permanent teeth: a meta-analysis.
  12. Sonbul HM. Influence of Bioactive Restorative Materials on Secondary Caries Prevention: A Clinical and In Vitro Study. Journal of Pharmacy and Bioallied Sciences. 2025;17(Suppl2):S1787-S1789. doi:10.4103/jpbs.jpbs_350_25
  13. Balhaddad AA, Kansara AA, Hidan D, Weir MD, Xu HHK, Melo MAS. Toward dental caries: Exploring nanoparticle-based platforms and calcium phosphate compounds for dental restorative materials. Bioactive Materials. 2019;4:43-55. doi:10.1016/j.bioactmat.2018.12.002
  14. Mushashe AM, de Almeida SA, Ferracane JL, Merritt J, Correr GM. Effect of biofilm exposure on marginal integrity of composite restorations. Am J Dent. 2020 Aug;33(4):201–205. PMID: 32794395; PMCID: PMC8136684.
Support