Clinical evaluation of glass ionomer with glass hybrid technology versus conventional high viscosity glass ionomer in class I cavities in patients with high caries risk: Randomized controlled trial

Clinical Evaluation of New Bioactive Restorative Material Versus Resin Modified Glass Ionomer in Restoration of Cervical Carious Lesions: Randomized Clinical Trial

“…This could be related to the small particles size of the two materials that grant the smooth polished surface. These results were in accordance with (Ismail et al, 2020), they compared Fuji II LC and ACTIVA to conventional glass-ionomer. They found that both materials have lower surface roughness than conventional glass ionomer, this was attributed to materials' smaller particle sizes in comparison to typical glass ionomer.…”

“…In the current study, regarding gingival inflammation; 5 restorations in ACTIVA presto group and 4 restorations in Fuji II LC group showed slight gingival inflammation. (Ismail et al, 2020) evaluated the effect of resin-modified glass ionomer (RMGIC), high viscosity GIC (HV-GIC), flowable bulk fill resin composite and bioactive ionic resin (ACTIVA) on the viability of gingival epithelial cells when placed sub-gingivally. It was found that Bulk Flow and ACTIVA showed the highest cell viability values while HV-GIC and RMGI had the lowest values relating this to the composition of the restorative material.…”

“…• Caries risk assessment Participants who had two or more cavitated carious lesions with at least one risk factor from the risk factors declared by CAMBRA (Caries Management By Risk Assessment) were considered patients with high caries risk (Cambra, 2011) (Jenson et al, 2007.…”

“…The cavity to be restored with ACTIVA Presto was isolated using rubber dam (Nic Tone, Expertech Solutions, Bucharest, Romania) and Sub-gingival clamps (KSK, DENTECH Corporation, Japan). While for Fuji II restoration group, the field was isolated using cotton rolls and a saliva ejector to allow normal moisture of dentin substrate (El-Bialy et al, 2020).…”

“…Restoration of class V cavities is difficult in clinical practice since the cervical margin is usually found in dentin or cementum. As a result of this trait, the cervical margin is more vulnerable to microleakage, resulting in cavo-surface stains, postoperative sensitivity, and an increased risk of recurrent caries (Francois et al, 2020).…”