OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the long-term clinical performance of two encapsulated glass ionomer cements (GICs) (EquiaFil and Riva SC) covered with two different coatings (Equia Coat and Fuji Varnish) over six years using modified US Public Health Service (USPHS) criteria. METHODS: Fifty-four patients having class I and II restorations/caries were included in the study. A total of 256 restorations were made with EquiaFil and Riva SC. Equia Coat or Fuji Varnish was used randomly on the surface of the restorations. After cavity preparations, the teeth were randomly restored with one GIC and coated with Equia Coat or Fuji Varnish. The restorations were evaluated at baseline; six, 12, and 18 months; and six years after placement using modified USPHS criteria. Two evaluators checked color match, marginal discoloration, marginal adaptation, caries formation, anatomical form, postoperative sensitivity, and retention rate, and photographs were taken at each recall. The results were evaluated with Pearson chi-square and Mann-Whitney U-test (p<0.05). RESULTS: Thirty-seven patients were evaluated. There was a significant difference between EquiaFil and Riva SC regarding retention rate and color match after six years (p=0.033 and 0.046). When comparing baseline to six years, the overall success of EquiaFil was better than Riva SC, having significant problems regarding retention rate and anatomical form (p=0.016 and 0.031). Class II cavities were significantly worse in marginal adaptation, anatomical form, and retention rate in the Riva SC groups (p=0.033, 0.015, and 0.007) but not in the EquiaFil groups. The combination of the coatings had no effect on the overall success of the materials. CONCLUSIONS: The EquiaFil system was more successful than Riva SC regarding color match, marginal adaptation, anatomic form, and retention rate after a six-year clinical evaluation period.
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the long-term clinical performance of two encapsulated glass ionomer cements (GICs) (EquiaFil and Riva SC) covered with two different coatings (Equia Coat and Fuji Varnish) over six years using modified US Public Health Service (USPHS) criteria. METHODS: Fifty-four patients having class I and II restorations/caries were included in the study. A total of 256 restorations were made with EquiaFil and Riva SC. Equia Coat or Fuji Varnish was used randomly on the surface of the restorations. After cavity preparations, the teeth were randomly restored with one GIC and coated with Equia Coat or Fuji Varnish. The restorations were evaluated at baseline; six, 12, and 18 months; and six years after placement using modified USPHS criteria. Two evaluators checked color match, marginal discoloration, marginal adaptation, caries formation, anatomical form, postoperative sensitivity, and retention rate, and photographs were taken at each recall. The results were evaluated with Pearson chi-square and Mann-Whitney U-test (p<0.05). RESULTS: Thirty-seven patients were evaluated. There was a significant difference between EquiaFil and Riva SC regarding retention rate and color match after six years (p=0.033 and 0.046). When comparing baseline to six years, the overall success of EquiaFil was better than Riva SC, having significant problems regarding retention rate and anatomical form (p=0.016 and 0.031). Class II cavities were significantly worse in marginal adaptation, anatomical form, and retention rate in the Riva SC groups (p=0.033, 0.015, and 0.007) but not in the EquiaFil groups. The combination of the coatings had no effect on the overall success of the materials. CONCLUSIONS: The EquiaFil system was more successful than Riva SC regarding color match, marginal adaptation, anatomic form, and retention rate after a six-year clinical evaluation period.