The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice

Register      Login



Volume / Issue

Online First

Related articles

VOLUME 19 , ISSUE 2 ( February, 2018 ) > List of Articles


Clinical Evaluation of Microhybrid Composite and Glass Ionomer Restorative Material in Permanent Teeth

Khalil Kharma, Tatiana Zogheib, Carina Mehanna

Citation Information : Kharma K, Zogheib T, Mehanna C. Clinical Evaluation of Microhybrid Composite and Glass Ionomer Restorative Material in Permanent Teeth. J Contemp Dent Pract 2018; 19 (2):226-232.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10024-2241

License: CC BY 3.0

Published Online: 01-04-2013

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2018; The Author(s).



The aim of this study was to clinically compare glass ionomer cement (GIC) with microhybrid composite resin used in class I cavities on permanent teeth over a period of 9 months.

Materials and methods

A total of 40 teeth with class I cavities were divided into two groups (n = 20) and restored with GIC (EQUIA; GC) and microhybrid resin composite (Amelogen Plus; Ultradent). Restorations were evaluated at ×4.5 magnification using the United States Public Health Service (USPHS) criteria every 3 months. Statistical analysis was performed using the Fisher's exact test (α < 0.05).


The data obtained reported no statistical significance difference between both groups in regard to anatomical shape, color, postoperative sensitivity, secondary caries, material handling, adaptation, and marginal staining.


The results of this clinical study showed that GIC (EQUIA; GC) can be used for the restoration of permanent teeth and may be more appropriate for certain clinical situations than the resin composite material.

Clinical significance

EQUIA (GIC) is a viable alternative to resin composite in restoring class I cavities in permanent teeth.

How to cite this article

Kharma K, Zogheib T, Bhandi S, Mehanna C. Clinical Evaluation of Microhybrid Composite and Glass Ionomer Restorative Material in Permanent Teeth. J Contemp Dent Pract 2018;19(2):226-232.

  1. Directly placed restorative materials: review and network meta-analysis. J Dent Res 2016 Jun;95(6):613-622.
  2. Managing the polymerization shrinkage of resin composite restorations: A review. SADJ 2007 Feb;62(1):12, 14, 16 passim.
  3. Bacterial colonization of resin composite cements: influence of material composition and surface roughness. Eur J Oral Sci 2017 Aug;125(4):294-302.
  4. Limitations in bonding to dentin and experimental strategies to prevent bond degradation. J Dent Res 2011 Aug;90(8):953-968.
  5. Microtensile bond strength, 4-point bending and nan leakage of resin-dentin interfaces: effects of two matrix metalloproteinase inhibitors. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater 2017 Nov;78:206-213.
  6. Bonding efficiency and durability: current possibilities. Braz Oral Res 2017 Aug;31(Suppl 1):e57.
  7. Effect of conditioning solutions containing ferric chloride on dentin bond strength and collagen degradation. Dent Mater 2017 Oct;33(10):1093-1102.
  8. Biomechanical behavior of extensively restored premolars: cusp deformation, marginal integrity, and fracture resistance. J Adhes Dent 2015 Jun;17(3):213-218.
  9. In vitro and in vivo evaluations of glass-ionomer cement containing chlorhexidine for atraumatic restorative treatment. J Appl Oral Sci 2017 Sep-Oct;25(5):541-550.
  10. Systematic review on highly viscous glass-ionomer cement/resin coating restorations (Part I): do they merge Minamata convention and minimum intervention dentistry? Quintessence Int 2016 Nov-Dec;47(10):813-823.
  11. A revised classification for direct tooth-colored restorative materials. Quintessence Int 2009 Sep;40(8):691-697.
  12. A deep morphological characterization and comparison of different dental restorative materials. BioMed Res Int 2017 Jun;2017:7346317.
  13. Evaluation of a conventional glass ionomer cement with new zinc formulation: effect of coating, aging and storage agents. Clin Oral Investig 2013 Mar;17(2):619-626.
  14. Effects of storage media on physical properties of selected tooth coloured restorative materials. Eur J Prosthodont Restor Dent 2009 Sep;17(3):116-120.
  15. Clinical evaluation of the ART technique using high density and resin-modified glass ionomer cements. Oral Health Prev Dent 2003;1(3):201-207.
  16. Cariostatic effect of GIC: a five-year clinical study. Aust Dent J 1991 Jun;36(3):236-239.
  17. Clinical performance of a glass ionomer restorative system: A 6-year evaluation. Clin Oral Investig 2017 Sep;21(7):2335-2343.
  18. Long-term dental restorations using high-viscosity coated glass ionomer cements. The Preliminary Program for IADR/AADR/CADR. San Francisco (CA): 89th General Session and Exhibition; 2011. pp. 16-19.
  19. The physical-mechanical performance of the new ketac molar easymix compared to commercially available glass ionomer restoratives. J Dent 2006 Sep;34(8):582-587.
  20. Clinical performance of a new glass ionomer based restoration system: a retrospective cohort study. Dent Mater 2011 Oct;27(10):1031-1037.
  21. Clinical failure of class-II restorations of a highly viscous glass-ionomer material over a 6-year period: a retrospective study. J Dent 2007 Feb;35(2):156-162.
  22. ; van Amerongen, WE.; Werner, A.; Kleverlaan, C. The effect of coating glass ionomers with a nanofilled resin. Barcelona: Abstract 2987-IADR; 2010.
  23. Four-year randomized clinical trial to evaluate the clinical performance of a glass ionomer restorative system. Oper Dent 2015 Mar-Apr;40(2):134-143.
  24. Clinical performance of reinforced glass ionomer restorations placed in UK dental practices. Br Dent J 2007 Jul;203(1):E2.
  25. Early and long-term wear of ‘fast-set’ conventional glass-ionomer cements. Dent Mater 2005 Aug;21(8):716-720.
  26. Strength and wear resistance of a dental glass-ionomer cement with a novel nanofilled resin coating. Am J Dent 2011 Apr;24(2):124-128.
  27. Is encapsulation of posterior glass-ionomer restoratives the solution to clinically induced variability introduced on mixing? Dent Mater 2008 Jul;24(7):957-966.
  28. Biofilm formation and release of fluoride from dental restorative materials in relation to their surface properties. J Dent 2017 May;60:14-24.
  29. Effect of two different polishing systems on fluoride release, surface roughness and bacterial adhesion of newly developed restorative materials. J Esthet Restor Dent 2017 Nov;15(6):297-304.
  30. Evaluation of cavity wall adaptation of bulk esthetic materials to restore class II cavities in primary molars. Clin Oral Investig 2017 May;21(4):1063-1070.
  31. Microleakage evaluation of silorane based composite versus methacrylate based composite. J Conserv Dent 2010 Jul;13(3):152-155.
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.