Clinical and experimental dental research · 2026
Comparison of Post-Cementation Sensitivity Between Resin Modified Glass Ionomer Cement and Conventional Glass Ionomer Cement as a Luting Material-A Randomized Clinical Trial.
СтатьяРандомизированное исследованиеСравнительное исследованиеПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Alam Shamsul, Sadiq Naveed, Elsayed Hend Mohamed, Shakir Sheema, Shaheen Nasser Hussein, Elmarakby Ahmed Mohammed, Rehman Asif
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To compare post-cementation sensitivity between resin-modified glass ionomer cement (RMGIC) and conventional glass ionomer cement (GIC) used as luting agents for single crowns.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: This randomized controlled trial was conducted at Saidu College of Dentistry, Swat, Pakistan. A total of 496 eligible participants were randomized into two groups: GIC (n = 248) and RMGIC (n = 248). Post-cementation sensitivity was recorded at 24 h, 1 week, and 1 month using a 10-point visual analog scale (VAS), with scores categorized as no, mild, moderate, or severe sensitivity. Data were analyzed using Mann-Whitney U tests, and linear mixed-effects models adjusted for age, gender, jaw, and prosthesis location.
RESULTS: Baseline demographic and clinical characteristics were comparable between groups. Post-cementation sensitivity was consistently lower in the RMGIC group compared to the GIC group across all time points. Median sensitivity scores at 24 h were 4.0 (GIC) versus 3.0 (RMGIC, p < 0.001); at 1 week, 2.0 versus 1.0 (p < 0.001); and at 1 month, both minimal but significantly lower in the RMGIC group (p < 0.001). The adjusted mixed-effects model confirmed that RMGIC significantly reduced sensitivity compared to GIC (β = -0.53; OR 0.59, 95% CI 0.46-0.75; p < 0.001). Sensitivity was highest at 24 h (β = 2.96; OR 19.3, 95% CI 15.3-24.3; p < 0.001), followed by 1 week (β = 0.81; OR 2.25, 95% CI 1.77-2.86; p < 0.001), and declined markedly by 1 month. Age showed a modest protective effect (β = -0.008; OR 0.99, 95% CI 0.99-1.00; p = 0.04), while gender, jaw, and prosthesis location were not significant predictors. A significant interaction at 24 h showed RMGIC provided an additional reduction in sensitivity compared to GIC (β = -0.83; OR 0.44, 95% CI 0.31-0.61; p < 0.001).
CONCLUSION: RMGIC demonstrated significantly lower post-cementation sensitivity compared to conventional GIC.
TRIAL REGISTRATION: This trial was retrospectively registered with Clinical Trials Registry of ClinicalTrials.gov(registration#NCT07102121) on August 3, 2025.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: This randomized controlled trial was conducted at Saidu College of Dentistry, Swat, Pakistan. A total of 496 eligible participants were randomized into two groups: GIC (n = 248) and RMGIC (n = 248). Post-cementation sensitivity was recorded at 24 h, 1 week, and 1 month using a 10-point visual analog scale (VAS), with scores categorized as no, mild, moderate, or severe sensitivity. Data were analyzed using Mann-Whitney U tests, and linear mixed-effects models adjusted for age, gender, jaw, and prosthesis location.
RESULTS: Baseline demographic and clinical characteristics were comparable between groups. Post-cementation sensitivity was consistently lower in the RMGIC group compared to the GIC group across all time points. Median sensitivity scores at 24 h were 4.0 (GIC) versus 3.0 (RMGIC, p < 0.001); at 1 week, 2.0 versus 1.0 (p < 0.001); and at 1 month, both minimal but significantly lower in the RMGIC group (p < 0.001). The adjusted mixed-effects model confirmed that RMGIC significantly reduced sensitivity compared to GIC (β = -0.53; OR 0.59, 95% CI 0.46-0.75; p < 0.001). Sensitivity was highest at 24 h (β = 2.96; OR 19.3, 95% CI 15.3-24.3; p < 0.001), followed by 1 week (β = 0.81; OR 2.25, 95% CI 1.77-2.86; p < 0.001), and declined markedly by 1 month. Age showed a modest protective effect (β = -0.008; OR 0.99, 95% CI 0.99-1.00; p = 0.04), while gender, jaw, and prosthesis location were not significant predictors. A significant interaction at 24 h showed RMGIC provided an additional reduction in sensitivity compared to GIC (β = -0.83; OR 0.44, 95% CI 0.31-0.61; p < 0.001).
CONCLUSION: RMGIC demonstrated significantly lower post-cementation sensitivity compared to conventional GIC.
TRIAL REGISTRATION: This trial was retrospectively registered with Clinical Trials Registry of ClinicalTrials.gov(registration#NCT07102121) on August 3, 2025.