Comparative In Vitro Assessment of Marginal Microleakage and Caries-Like Lesions Around Common Restorative Materials
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.36283/ziun-pjmd15-1/016Keywords:
Dental Caries, Composite Resins, Dental Amalgam, Glass Ionomer Cements, Dental Leakage, Tooth DemineralizationAbstract
Background: Secondary caries formation is still one of the main reasons of restorations fail, mostly caused by the material's resistance to microleakage and marginal sealing ability. The objective of this research was to assess compare the degree of secondary caries development next to restorations made of Glass Ionomer Cement (GIC), Composite Resin, and Amalgam.
Methods: The in-vitro study was conducted (March 2024 to August 2024) at Dentistry department at with randomly selected groups (n = 30 each) created from 90 extracted human premolars: Group A (Composite Resin), Group B (Amalgam), and Group C (GIC). In accordance with the guidelines provided by the manufacturers, standardized Class I and II cavities were prepared and restored. The samples were subjected to artificial demineralization (pH cycling) and thermocycling in order to replicate oral conditions that are favorable for the development of marginal caries. In SPSS version 26.0, one-way ANOVA and chi-square tests were used to analyze the data(p < 0.05 as significant).
Results: The findings showed that Amalgam restorations had the most severe lesions and the highest leakage (0.87 ± 0.21 mm), while Composite Resin restorations had the lowest microleakage (0.58 ± 0.16 mm) and the lowest caries incidence. GIC exhibited results that were in between (0.72 ± 0.19). The groups differed significantly (p = 0.01 for caries severity and p = 0.002 for leakage).
Conclusion: In comparison to Amalgam and GIC, Composite Resin demonstrated better marginal adaptation and resistance to secondary caries. These results highlight the significance of choosing restorative materials to reduce restoration failures.
References
1. Meral E, Oz FD, Ergin E, Gurgan S. 48-month comperative evaluation of a novel glass ionomer cement and a resin composite in restoring non-carious cervical lesions of patients with systemic diseases: A randomized clinical trial. J Dent. 2025 Jun;157:105726. doi: 10.1016/j.jdent.2025.105726.
2. Pooja MP, Karuna YM, Rao A, Suman E, Natarajan S, Suprabha BS. Comparative Evaluation of the Sealing Ability of an Alkasite Restorative Material and Resin-Modified Glass Ionomer Cement in Primary Molars: An In vivo Study. Contemp Clin Dent. 2022 Apr-Jun;13(2):113-117. doi: 10.4103/ccd.ccd_345_20.
3. Kumari A, Singh N. A comparative evaluation of microleakage and dentin shear bond strength of three restorative materials. Biomater Investig Dent. 2022 Feb 10;9(1):1-9. doi: 10.1080/26415275.2022.2033623.
4. Amina, Rajput G, Ahmed S, Chaturvedi S, Addas MK, Bhagat TV, Gurumurthy V, et al. Comparison of Microleakage in Nanocomposite and Amalgam as a Crown Foundation Material Luted with Different Luting Cements under CAD-CAM Milled Metal Crowns: An In Vitro Microscopic Study. Polymers (Basel). 2022 Jun 27;14(13):2609. doi: 10.3390/polym14132609.
5. Santos MJMC, Rêgo HMC, Siddique I, Jessani A. Five-Year Clinical Performance of Complex Class II Resin Composite and Amalgam Restorations-A Retrospective Study. Dent J (Basel). 2023 Mar 24;11(4):88. doi: 10.3390/dj11040088.
6. Omidi BR, Naeini FF, Dehghan H, Tamiz P, Savadroodbari MM, Jabbarian R. Microleakage of an Enhanced Resin-Modified Glass Ionomer Restorative Material in Primary Molars. J Dent (Tehran). 2018 Jul;15(4):205-213.
7. Ge KX, Quock R, Chu CH, Yu OY. The preventive effect of glass ionomer cement restorations on secondary caries formation: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Dent Mater. 2023 Dec;39(12):e1-e17. doi: 10.1016/j.dental.2023.10.008.
8. 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 Jun 15;23(1):394. doi: 10.1186/s12903-023-03110-y.
9. Brenes-Alvarado A, Cury JA. Fluoride Release from Glass Ionomer Cement and Resin-modified Glass Ionomer Cement Materials under Conditions Mimicking the Caries Process. Oper Dent. 2021 Jul 1;46(4):457-466. doi: 10.2341/19-296-L.
10. Arbildo-Vega HI, Cruzado-Oliva FH, Coronel-Zubiate FT, Luján-Valencia SA, Meza-Málaga JM, Aguirre-Ipenza R, et al. Comparison of clinical performance of glass ionomer cement vs. composite resin in restorations of non-carious cervical lesions: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Clin Exp Dent. 2025 Aug 1;17(8):e995-e1005. doi: 10.4317/jced.62997.
11. Bhardwaj R, Agrawal U, Vashist P, Manna S. Determination of sample size for various study designs in medical research: A practical primer. J Family Med Prim Care. 2024 Jul;13(7):2555-2561. doi: 10.4103/jfmpc.jfmpc_1675_23.
12. Nicholson JW, Sidhu SK, Czarnecka B. Fluoride exchange by glass-ionomer dental cements and its clinical effects: a review. Biomater Investig Dent. 2023 Aug 18;10(1):2244982. doi: 10.1080/26415275.2023.2244982.
13. Albelasy EH, Hamama HH, Chew HP, Montaser M, Mahmoud SH. Secondary caries and marginal adaptation of ion-releasing versus resin composite restorations: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials. Sci Rep. 2022 Nov 10;12(1):19244. doi: 10.1038/s41598-022-19622-6.
14. Messer-Hannemann P, Böttcher H, Henning S, Schwendicke F, Effenberger S. Concept of a Novel Glass Ionomer Restorative Material with Improved Mechanical Properties. J Funct Biomater. 2023 Oct 24;14(11):534. doi: 10.3390/jfb14110534.
15. Klimas S, Kiryk S, Kiryk J, Kotela A, Kensy J, Michalak M, et al. The Impact of Environmental and Material Factors on Fluoride Release from Metal-Modified Glass Ionomer Cements: A Systematic Review of In Vitro Studies. Materials (Basel). 2025 Jul 5;18(13):3187. doi: 10.3390/ma18133187.
16. Morales-Valenzuela AA, Scougall-Vilchis RJ, Lara-Carrillo E, Garcia-Contreras R, Hegazy-Hassan W, Toral-Rizo VH, et al. Enhancement of fluoride release in glass ionomer cements modified with titanium dioxide nanoparticles. Medicine (Baltimore). 2022 Nov 4;101(44):e31434. doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000031434.
17. Amend S, Boutsiouki C, Bekes K, Kloukos D, Gizani S, Lygidakis NN, et al. Clinical effectiveness of restorative materials for the restoration of carious lesions in pulp treated primary teeth: a systematic review. Eur Arch Paediatr Dent. 2022 Oct;23(5):761-776. doi: 10.1007/s40368-022-00744-4.
18. Osama S, Badran AS, Awad BG. Effect of silver diamine fluoride on the microleakage of flowable resin composite and glass ionomer cement restorations to carious primary dentin: an-in vitro study. BMC Oral Health. 2024 Jan 16;24(1):91. doi: 10.1186/s12903-024-03861-2.
19. Altınışık H, Erten Can H, Mutlu Ağardan NB, Berkkan A, Güney M. Prevention of secondary caries using fluoride-loaded chitosan nanoparticle-modified glass-ionomer cement. Clin Oral Investig. 2024 Aug 28;28(9):504. doi: 10.1007/s00784-024-05891-0.
20. Mehta V, Srivastava N, Ali Chaudhry S, Rana V. Comparative evaluation of fluoride release from different modifications of glass ionomer dental restorative material in primary teeth at different time intervals: An ex vivo study. J Oral Biol Craniofac Res. 2025 Nov-Dec;15(6):1224-1230. doi: 10.1016/j.jobcr.2025.07.029.
21. Al-Asmar AA, Ha Sabrah A, Abd-Raheam IM, Ismail NH, Oweis YG. Clinical evaluation of reasons for replacement of amalgam vs composite posterior restorations. Saudi Dent J. 2023 Mar;35(3):275-281. doi: 10.1016/j.sdentj.2023.02.003.
22. Batu Eken Z, Ilie N. A Critical Review on the Factors Affecting the Bond Strength of Direct Restorative Material Alternatives to Amalgam. Materials (Basel). 2024 Oct 1;17(19):4853. doi: 10.3390/ma17194853.
23. Chen AM, Ekambaram M, Li KC, Cooper PR, Mei ML. A scoping review of the influence of clinical contaminants on bond strength in direct adhesive restorative procedures. J Dent. 2024 Jun;145:104985. doi: 10.1016/j.jdent.2024.104985.
24. Worthington HV, Khangura S, Seal K, Mierzwinski-Urban M, Veitz-Keenan A, Sahrmann P, et al. Direct composite resin fillings versus amalgam fillings for permanent posterior teeth. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2021 Aug 13;8(8):CD005620. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD005620.pub3.
25. Bhagwat S, Mandke L, Vandekar M, Basmatkar N, Pawar A, Khatri R. Longevity of Amalgam Versus Composite Resin Restorations in Permanent Posterior Teeth: A Systematic Review. Cureus. 2025 Jul 27;17(7):e88836. doi: 10.7759/cureus.88836.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Pakistan Journal of Medicine and Dentistry
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the CreativeCommons Attribution License (CC BY) 4.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
Metrics
How to Cite
