OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to compare inhibition, in vitro, of a resin-modified and a conventional glass ionomer cement. METHODS: Standardized Class V cavities were prepared in extracted human molar teeth and restored with Fuji II LC (n = 14) or Chemfil II (n = 14) according to manufacturers' guidelines. The teeth were submerged in an acid gel (lactic acid, gelatin, thymol, pH 4.5) for 14 days and resin embedded. Photomicrographs of ground sections were examined for enamel surface lesions, dentine surface lesions, wall lesions and evidence of caries inhibition. RESULTS: There was no significant difference between the depths of enamel or dentine surface lesions between the two materials. No wall lesions were found. CONCLUSIONS: Fuji II LC proved more acid resistant than Chemfil II and both materials inhibited caries in vitro.
OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to compare inhibition, in vitro, of a resin-modified and a conventional glass ionomer cement. METHODS: Standardized Class V cavities were prepared in extracted human molar teeth and restored with Fuji II LC (n = 14) or Chemfil II (n = 14) according to manufacturers' guidelines. The teeth were submerged in an acid gel (lactic acid, gelatin, thymol, pH 4.5) for 14 days and resin embedded. Photomicrographs of ground sections were examined for enamel surface lesions, dentine surface lesions, wall lesions and evidence of caries inhibition. RESULTS: There was no significant difference between the depths of enamel or dentine surface lesions between the two materials. No wall lesions were found. CONCLUSIONS: Fuji II LC proved more acid resistant than Chemfil II and both materials inhibited caries in vitro.