ABSTRACT
STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: Advertisements of glass-ionomer-containing restorative materials recommend suitability as load-bearing permanent or semi-permanent restorations. Historically, unacceptably high wear rates limit clinical indications of glass-ionomer-containing restorations in this regard. OBJECTIVE: To compare the in vitro wear of contemporary glass-ionomer-containing dental materials commercially advertised for use in permanent dentition as load-bearing restorations in a chewing simulator. Resin composite was tested as a control. METHODS AND MATERIALS: A resin-modified glass ionomer (Ionolux, VOCO gmbH), a high viscosity glass-ionomer hybrid system (Equia Forte HT with Equia Coat, GC America), and a bioactive ionic resin with reactive glass filler (Activa Bioactive Restorative, Pulpdent) were evaluated. Filtek Supreme Ultra (3M ESPE) is a visible light-activated resin composite that served as a control. Standardized flat disk-shaped specimens (n=12/group) were submitted to 500,000 cycles with continuous thermal cycling against steatite antagonists. Volumetric wear was measured at 1000, 10,000, 200,000, and 500,000 cycles. RESULTS: There was a statistically significant difference in mean volumetric wear for Activa Bioactive Restorative (p=0.0081, 95% CI: 0.3973, 0.4982) and Equia Forte HT (p<0.001, 95% CI: 1.2495, 1.8493), but no statistically significant difference in mean volumetric wear for Ionolux (p=0.6653) compared to control. Activa Bioactive Restorative wore approximately 60% less than, and Equia Forte HT twice more than Filtek Supreme Ultra on average, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Compared to a resin composite, contemporary glass-ionomer-containing restorative materials advertised for use as load-bearing restorations display measurably variable in vitro wear rates.
