Comparative analysis of different filling materials in deciduous teeth

Hafsah O. Barnwai; Sawssan S. Alkhowaiter; Salma H. Alduhiman; Felwah A. Almarri; Saja S. Alforehi; Lana G. Alotaibi; Rayan A. Alshehri; Saja Althebaiti; Faisal M. Alyahya; Bassmah A. Baeti; Soundous S. Al-Resayes

doi:10.18203/2394-6040.ijcmph20242689

Authors

Hafsah O. Barnwai Dental Department, Prince Sultan Military Medical City, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
Sawssan S. Alkhowaiter Department of Pediatric Dentistry, Prince Sultan Military Medical City, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
Salma H. Alduhiman Dental Department, Prince Sultan Military Medical City, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
Felwah A. Almarri Dental Department, Prince Sultan Military Medical City, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
Saja S. Alforehi Dental Department, Prince Sultan Military Medical City, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
Lana G. Alotaibi Dental Department, Prince Sultan Military Medical City, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
Rayan A. Alshehri Dental Department, University Medical Services Centre - King Abdulaziz University, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia
Saja Althebaiti Dental Department, King Abdulaziz Medical City, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia
Faisal M. Alyahya Department of Dentistry, Al-Nakheel Medical Center, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
Bassmah A. Baeti Dental Department, Prince Sultan Military Medical City, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
Soundous S. Al-Resayes Dental Department, Prince Sultan Military Medical City, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.18203/2394-6040.ijcmph20242689

Keywords:

Composite resins, Glass ionomer cements, Resin-modified glass ionomers, Pediatric dentistry, Deciduous teeth restoration

Abstract

Dental caries in pediatric patients presents a significant challenge in maintaining oral health, making the choice of filling materials for deciduous teeth crucial for long-term success. Various restorative materials, including composite resins, glass ionomer cements (GICs), and resin-modified glass ionomers (RMGICs), have been used, each with distinct properties regarding durability, biocompatibility, and aesthetic outcomes. Composite resins are well-regarded for their ability to closely match the natural color of teeth, making them ideal for anterior restorations. However, they are technique-sensitive and may not provide sufficient durability in posterior regions subjected to high stress. Glass ionomer cements, known for their ease of placement and fluoride release, offer functional benefits in high-caries-risk patients, despite their lower aesthetic quality and susceptibility to wear over time. Resin-modified glass ionomers attempt to combine the strengths of both composites and GICs by improving durability and aesthetics while maintaining the fluoride-releasing property. The safety and biocompatibility of these materials also play a pivotal role in pediatric dentistry. While composite resins may release small amounts of bisphenol A (BPA), which has raised concerns about its potential health risks, GICs and RMGICs are generally considered safer due to their simpler chemical composition and fluoride release. In terms of functional longevity, composite resins offer better wear resistance compared to GICs, though resin-modified glass ionomers provide a compromise with improved strength and ease of use. Ultimately, the choice of restorative material should consider the specific clinical circumstances, including the child’s caries risk, tooth location, and the balance between aesthetic and functional needs. No single material is universally ideal for all cases, and a tailored approach is necessary to optimize outcomes in pediatric dental restorations.

Metrics

Metrics Loading ...

References

Kidd E, Fejerskov O. What constitutes dental caries? Histopathology of carious enamel and dentin related to the action of cariogenic biofilms. J Dent Res. 2004;83(1):35-8.

Graham J. Glass-ionomer cements: Past, present and future. Oper Dent. 1994;19:82-90.

Ad W. A new translucent cement for dentistry: the glass-ionomer cement. Br Dent J. 1972;132:133-5.

Tyas MJ. Clinical evaluation of glass-ionomer cement restorations. J Appl Oral Sci. 2006;14:10-3.

Forss H, Widström E. From amalgam to composite: selection of restorative materials and restoration longevity in Finland. Acta Odontologica Scandinavica. 2001;59(2):57-62.

Berg JH. The continuum of restorative materials in pediatric dentistry-a review for the clinician. Pediatr Dentistry. 1998;20:93-100.

Blum IR, Lynch CD. Repair versus replacement of defective direct dental restorations in posterior teeth of adults. Prim Dent J. 2014;3(2):62-7.

Bezerra IM, Brito ACM, de Sousa SA, Santiago BM, Cavalcanti YW, de Almeida LdFD. Glass ionomer cements compared with composite resin in restoration of noncarious cervical lesions: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Heliyon. 2020;6(5).

Markovic D, Peric T, Petrovic B. Glass-ionomer fissure sealants: Clinical observations up to 13 years. J Dentistry. 2018;79:85-9.

Van Landuyt K, Nawrot T, Geebelen B. How much do resin-based dental materials release? A meta-analytical approach. Dent Mat. 2011;27(8):723-47.

Upadhyay A, Pillai S, Khayambashi P. Biomimetic aspects of oral and dentofacial regeneration. Biomimetics. 2020;5(4):51.

Crisp S, Wilson AD. Reactions in glass ionomer cements: V. Effect of incorporating tartaric acid in the cement liquid. J Dent Res. 1976;55(6):1023-31.

Vinothkumar TS, El-Shamy FM, Mergami JM. Evaluation of color assimilation and translucency of monoshade resin composites: An in vitro study. World J Dentistry. 2020;11(5):367-72.

García-Godoy F. Resin-based composites and compomers in primary molars. Dent Clin North Am. 2000;44(3):541-70.

Almuhaiza M. Glass-ionomer cements in restorative dentistry: a critical appraisal. J Contemp Dent Pract. 2016;17(4):331-6.