Evaluating the Reliability of Glass Ionomer Cements in Restorative Dentistry for Primary Teeth: A Systematic Review
Abstract
The clinical reliability of glass ionomer cements (GICs) in pediatric restorative dentistry remains a critical concern due to variations in material formulations and their performance in primary teeth. Despite continuous advancements, inconsistencies in clinical outcomes and influencing factors necessitate a comprehensive evaluation of current evidence. This systematic review aimed to assess and compare the clinical performance of different types of GICs used in restorations of primary teeth and to identify the factors affecting their success rates. A systematic search was conducted across four electronic databases MEDLINE, Cochrane Central, ScienceDirect, and EBSCOhost covering studies published between 2013 and 2025. The review followed PRISMA guidelines and applied the PICO framework to define eligibility criteria. Only randomized controlled trials involving pediatric patients with vital primary teeth were included. Study quality was assessed using the Modified Jadad Scale, and due to heterogeneity in methodologies, a narrative synthesis approach was adopted. Out of 237 identified records, seven studies met the inclusion criteria. The findings demonstrated that resin-modified glass ionomer cements (RMGICs) and high-viscosity glass ionomer cements (HVGICs) exhibited superior clinical success rates, reaching approximately 94% and 77%, respectively. These materials showed favorable longevity, enhanced marginal integrity, and satisfactory esthetic outcomes. Key factors influencing restoration success included the type of molar restored (p = 0.003) and the affected surface (p < 0.001), while patient-related variables showed no significant association. In conclusion, RMGICs and HVGICs are currently the most reliable restorative materials for primary teeth due to their improved mechanical and bioactive properties. However, restoration success is multifactorial, depending not only on material selection but also on clinical technique and cavity characteristics. Future research should focus on long-term, standardized clinical trials to strengthen evidence-based recommendations.
Full text article
References
[1] S. Vangani and B. Padiyar, “Recent advancements in glass ionomer cements,” Journal of Medical and Dental Science Research, vol. 11, no. 6, pp. 7–14, 2024.
[2] V. Mehta, N. Srivastava, and S. A. Chaudhry, “Recent modifications of glass ionomer cement in pediatric dentistry: An update,” Journal of Chemical Health Risks, vol. 14, no. 3, pp. 1–10, 2024.
[3] U. S. N. G. Saridena, G. S. S. J. Sanka, R. K. Alla, A. V. Ramaraju, and S. Sajjan, “An overview of advances in glass ionomer cements,” International Journal of Dental Materials, vol. 4, no. 4, pp. 89–94, 2022, doi: 10.37983/IJDM.2022.4403.
[4] M. Almuhaiza, “Glass-ionomer cements in restorative dentistry: A critical appraisal,” Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice, vol. 22, no. 4, pp. 331–336, 2021.
[5] C. J. Kleverlaan, R. N. van Duinen, and A. J. Feilzer, “Mechanical properties of glass ionomer cements affected by curing methods,” Dental Materials, vol. 36, no. 1, pp. 45–50, 2020, doi: 10.1016/j.dental.2019.10.005.
[6] A. Dermata, S. N. Papageorgiou, and N. Kotsanos, “Three-year performance of a nano-filled resin-modified glass ionomer cement in class II primary molar restorations,” European Archives of Paediatric Dentistry, vol. 22, no. 3, pp. 425–432, 2021, doi: 10.1007/s40368-020-00545-2.
[7] M. G. Baba, Z. Kirzioglu, and D. Ceyhan, “One-year clinical evaluation of two high-viscosity glass-ionomer cements in class II restorations of primary molars,” Australian Dental Journal, vol. 66, no. 1, pp. 32–40, 2021, doi: 10.1111/adj.12802.
[8] R. C. Oliveira et al., “Survival rate of primary molar restorations is not influenced by hand mixed or encapsulated GIC: 24 months randomized clinical trial,” BMC Oral Health, vol. 21, no. 1, p. 371, 2021, doi: 10.1186/s12903-021-01710-0.
[9] M. A. Durhan et al., “Randomized clinical trial of heated high viscosity glass ionomer class II restorations in deciduous molars: 12-month follow-up,” Clinical and Experimental Health Sciences, vol. 12, no. 3, pp. 514–520, 2022, doi: 10.33808/clinexphealthsci.997219.
[10] A. H. Ali, A. A. Mohamed, and D. M. Talaat, “Effectiveness of Ketac Nano restoration in class II cavities in primary molars: A randomized controlled clinical trial,” Systematic Reviews in Pharmacy, vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 11–18, 2023, doi: 10.31858/0975-8453.14.1.11-18.
[11] S. Manisha, S. S. Shetty, V. Mehta, S. A. R., and A. Meto, “A comprehensive evaluation of zirconia-reinforced glass ionomer cement’s effectiveness: A systematic review and network meta-analysis,” Dentistry Journal, vol. 11, no. 9, p. 211, 2023, doi: 10.3390/dj11090211.
[12] A. Kurt, T. Tüzüner, and Ö. Baygın, “Antibacterial characteristics of glass ionomer cements containing antibacterial agents,” European Archives of Paediatric Dentistry, vol. 22, no. 1, pp. 49–56, 2021, doi: 10.1007/s40368-020-00531-8.
[13] A. Babu, S. Dinakaran, A. S. Gopinath, et al., “Comparative evaluation of fluoride release and recharge of zirconia-reinforced, resin-modified, and conventional glass ionomer cements,” World Journal of Dentistry, vol. 12, no. 6, pp. 469–473, 2021, doi: 10.5005/jp-journals-10015-1883.
[14] A. G. A. Dias, M. B. Magno, A. C. B. Delbem, R. F. Cunha, L. C. Maia, and J. P. Pessan, “Clinical performance of glass ionomer cement and composite resin in Class II restorations in primary teeth: A systematic review and meta-analysis,” Journal of Dentistry, vol. 73, pp. 1–13, 2020, doi: 10.1016/j.jdent.2018.04.004.
[15] R. Albeshti and S. Shahid, “Evaluation of microleakage in zirconia reinforced glass ionomer cement,” Acta Stomatologica Croatica, vol. 55, no. 2, pp. 97–104, 2021, doi: 10.15644/asc55/2/2.
[16] F. F. Demarco, K. Collares, M. B. Corrêa, M. S. Cenci, R. R. de Moraes, and N. J. Opdam, “Should my restorations last forever? Why are they failing?,” Dental Materials, vol. 37, no. 1, pp. 1–12, 2021, doi: 10.1016/j.dental.2020.10.020.
[17] J. W. Nicholson, “Adhesion of glass-ionomer cements to teeth: A review,” International Journal of Adhesion and Adhesives, vol. 104, p. 102749, 2021, doi: 10.1016/j.ijadhadh.2020.102749.
[18] E. Sungurtekin-Ekci, D. Ozdemir-Ozenen, S. Duman, and N. Sandalli, “Antibacterial surface properties of fluoride-releasing restorative materials,” Journal of Applied Biomaterials & Functional Materials, vol. 19, pp. 1–7, 2021, doi: 10.1177/22808000211014600.
[19] M. Behr, M. Rosentritt, H. Loher, et al., “Changes in cement properties caused by mixing errors: The therapeutic range of different cement types,” Dental Materials, vol. 37, no. 5, pp. 1187–1193, 2021, doi: 10.1016/j.dental.2021.01.015.
[20] R. Nomoto, M. Komoriyama, J. F. McCabe, and S. Hirano, “Effect of mixing method on the porosity of encapsulated glass ionomer cement,” Dental Materials, vol. 36, no. 9, pp. 972–978, 2020, doi: 10.1016/j.dental.2020.06.003.
[21] M. J. Page, J. E. McKenzie, P. M. Bossuyt, I. Boutron, T. C. Hoffmann, C. D. Mulrow, et al., “The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews,” BMJ, vol. 372, p. n71, 2021, doi: 10.1136/bmj.n71.
[22] W. M. Bramer, G. Bain, and M. M. Kleijnen, “Systematic literature searching in clinical research: Best practices and tools,” Journal of the Medical Library Association, vol. 109, no. 1, pp. 1–8, 2021, doi: 10.5195/jmla.2021.1050.
[23] J. P. T. Higgins, J. Thomas, J. Chandler, M. Cumpston, T. Li, M. J. Page, and V. A. Welch, Eds., Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions, version 6.3. Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons, 2022.
[24] Z. Munn, M. D. Peters, C. Stern, C. Tufanaru, A. McArthur, and E. Aromataris, “Systematic review or scoping review? Guidance for authors when choosing between a systematic or scoping review approach,” BMC Medical Research Methodology, vol. 22, no. 1, p. 143, 2022, doi: 10.1186/s12874-022-01659-0.
[25] D. Moher, A. Liberati, J. Tetzlaff, and D. G. Altman, “Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement,” PLoS Medicine, vol. 18, no. 3, p. e1003583, 2021, doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1003583.
[26] S. Li, J. Xu, and Y. Wang, “Best practices for data extraction in systematic reviews and meta-analysis,” Research Synthesis Methods, vol. 12, no. 3, pp. 1–10, 2021, doi: 10.1002/jrsm.1474.
[27] S. A. Olivo, D. Macedo, M. Gadotti, T. Fuentes, T. Stanton, and A. Magee, “Scales to assess the quality of randomized controlled trials: A systematic review,” Physical Therapy, vol. 101, no. 2, p. pzaa220, 2021, doi: 10.1093/ptj/pzaa220.
[28] J. Popay, H. Roberts, A. Sowden, M. Petticrew, L. Arai, M. Rodgers, et al., “Guidance on the conduct of narrative synthesis in systematic reviews,” ESRC Methods Programme, Lancaster University, UK, 2020.
[29] Dermata et al., “Three-year clinical performance of nano-filled resin-modified glass ionomer cement in primary molars,” Eur. Arch. Paediatr. Dent., vol. 22, no. 3, pp. 425–432, 2021, doi: 10.1007/s40368-020-00545-2.
[30] M. G. Baba et al., “Clinical evaluation of high-viscosity glass ionomer cement restorations in primary molars,” Aust. Dent. J., vol. 66, no. 1, pp. 32–40, 2021, doi: 10.1111/adj.12802.
[31] R. C. Oliveira et al., “Survival rate of ART restorations using GIC in primary teeth,” BMC Oral Health, vol. 21, p. 371, 2021, doi: 10.1186/s12903-021-01710-0.
[32] S. Manisha et al., “Zirconia-reinforced GIC effectiveness: A systematic review,” Dentistry Journal, vol. 11, no. 9, p. 211, 2023, doi: 10.3390/dj11090211.
[33] A. Kurt et al., “Antibacterial and marginal properties of modified GICs,” Eur. Arch. Paediatr. Dent., vol. 22, no. 1, pp. 49–56, 2021, doi: 10.1007/s40368-020-00531-8.
[34] A. G. A. Dias et al., “Clinical performance of GIC vs composite in primary teeth,” J. Dent., vol. 73, pp. 1–13, 2020, doi: 10.1016/j.jdent.2018.04.004.
[35] F. F. Demarco et al., “Longevity of dental restorations: A systematic review,” Dent. Mater., vol. 37, no. 1, pp. 1–12, 2021, doi: 10.1016/j.dental.2020.10.020.
[36] H. Schwendicke et al., “Artificial intelligence in dentistry: Chances and challenges,” J. Dent. Res., vol. 99, no. 7, pp. 769–774, 2020, doi: 10.1177/0022034520915714.
Authors
Copyright (c) 2026 selsebil laajimi, souha Saidi, farah chouchene, yamina elelmi, ahlem Baaziz
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
- Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlikel 4.0 International (CC BY-SA 4.0) that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).