A Retrospective Analysis of Resin-Based Polymer Composites and Bioactive Glass-Polymer Hybrids Regarding Secondary Caries and Durability

Year : 2026 | Volume : 14 | Special Issue 01 | Page : 1089 1095
    By

    NajiyaV.P.,

  • Remmiya Mary Varghese,

  • Shrishti kumawat,

  • Charu Sharma,

  • Gaini Mounika,

  • Mohan Rawat,

  1. Resident, Department of Orthodontics, Saveetha Dental College and Hospitals, Saveetha institute of medical and technical sciences, Saveetha university, 162, Poonamallee high road, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India
  2. Associate Professor, Department of Orthodontics, Saveetha Dental College and Hospitals, Saveetha Institute of Medical and Technical Science, Saveetha University, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India
  3. Assistant Professor, Department of Conservative dentistry and Endodontics, Arya medical college and hospital, Omaxe City, Ajmer Road, Jaipur, Rajasthan, India
  4. Dental Surgeon, Department of General Dentistry, Private Practitioner, Trusmile Dental Clinic, Chandkheda, Ahmedabad, Gujarat, India
  5. Reader, Department of Conservative dentistry and Endodontics. Narayana dental college and hospital, chintareddypalem, Nellore, Andhra Pradesh, India
  6. Senior lecturer, Department of Periodontics, KD Dental college, Mathura, Uttar Pradesh, India

Abstract

Aim- To compare the 2-year clinical survival and failure modes of a Resin-Based Polymer Composites and BioactiveGlass-Polymer Hybrids in Class I and II posterior restorations. Methods-A total of 550 restorations were placed in adult patients across various private dental practices in India to ensure a diverse clinical demographic. Teeth were randomly assigned and restored with either a hybrid composite (Te-Econom, IvoclarVivadent; n=275) or a Resin-Modified Glass Ionomer Cement (GC Gold Label 2 LC, GC Corp; n=275). Clinical performance was monitored over a 24-month period using Modified USPHS criteria. Statistical analysis of restoration survival was performed using Kaplan-Meier estimators, while the influence of material type on failure risk was determined via Cox regression models (p < 0.05). Results- At 2 years, the overall survival rate was higher for RC (95.6%) compared to RMGIC (91.3%), a difference approaching significance (p=0.054) RMGIC was significantly more prone to mechanical failure (fracture) than RC (4.0% vs. 0.7%; p=0.007). Conversely, RMGIC demonstrated a protective trend against biological failure, with lower incidence of secondary caries (1.5%) compared to RC (2.5%), though this did not reach statistical significance (p=0.306). Conclusion- While RMGIC demonstrated potential bioactive benefits in reducing secondary caries risk, its clinical longevity in load-bearing posterior teeth is compromised by lower fracture resistance. Conventional resin composite remains the mechanically superior choice for Class I and II restorations

Keywords: Resin-Based Polymer Composites, Bioactive Glass-Polymer Systems, Glass Ionomer Cements, remineralization, Clinical Longevity

[This article belongs to Special Issue under section in Journal of Polymer & Composites (jopc)]

How to cite this article:
NajiyaV.P., Remmiya Mary Varghese, Shrishti kumawat, Charu Sharma, Gaini Mounika, Mohan Rawat. A Retrospective Analysis of Resin-Based Polymer Composites and Bioactive Glass-Polymer Hybrids Regarding Secondary Caries and Durability. Journal of Polymer & Composites. 2026; 14(01):1089-1095.
How to cite this URL:
NajiyaV.P., Remmiya Mary Varghese, Shrishti kumawat, Charu Sharma, Gaini Mounika, Mohan Rawat. A Retrospective Analysis of Resin-Based Polymer Composites and Bioactive Glass-Polymer Hybrids Regarding Secondary Caries and Durability. Journal of Polymer & Composites. 2026; 14(01):1089-1095. Available from: https://journals.stmjournals.com/jopc/article=2026/view=236716


References

  1. Díaz-Garrido N, Lozano C, Giacaman RA. Frequency of sucrose exposure on the cariogenicity of a biofilm-caries model. Eur J Dent. 2016;10(3):345–350. doi: 10.4103/1305-7456.184163. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Goldstein GR. The longevity of direct and indirect posterior restorations is uncertain and may be affected by a number of dentist-, patient-, and material-related factors. J Evid Based Dent Pract. 2010 Mar;10(1):30–1. doi: 10.1016/j.jebdp.2009.11.015.
  3. Sheiham A, James WPT. Diet and Dental Caries: The Pivotal Role of Free Sugars Reemphasized. J Dent Res. 2015;94(10):1341–1347. doi: 10.1177/0022034515590377. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Tsujimoto A, Barkmeier WW, Fischer NG, Nojiri K, Nagura Y, Takamizawa T, Latta MA, Miazaki M. Wear of resin composites: Current insights into underlying mechanisms, evaluation methods and influential factors. Jpn Dent Sci Rev. 2018 May;54(2):76–87. doi: 10.1016/j.jdsr.2017.11.002
  5. El-Adl ET, Ebaya MM, Habib EE, Zaghloul NM. Comparative measurement of short-term fluoride release and inhibition of caries around restoration by ion releasing restorative materials: an in vitro study. Sci Rep. 2025 Jan 10;15(1):1600. doi: 10.1038/s41598-024-78918-x.
  6. Khvostenko D, Hilton TJ, Ferracane JL, Mitchell JC, Kruzic JJ. Bioactive glass fillers reduce bacterial penetration into marginal gaps for composite restorations. Dent Mater. 2016 Jan;32(1):73–81. doi: 10.1016/j.dental.2015.10.007. Epub 2015 Nov 24. PMID: 26621028; PMCID: PMC4696903.
  7. Opdam, N. J., et al. (2014). Longevity of posterior composite restorations: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Dental Research, 93(10), 943–949.
  8. Heintze SD, Rousson V. Clinical effectiveness of direct class II restorations – a meta-analysis. J Adhes Dent. 2012 Aug;14(5):407–31. doi: 10.3290/j.jad.a28390. PMID: 23082310.
  9. Pinto NS, Jorge GR, Vasconcelos J, Probst LF, De-Carli AD, Freire A. Clinical efficacy of bioactive restorative materials in controlling secondary caries: a systematic review and network meta-analysis. BMC Oral Health. 2023 Jun 15;23(1):394. doi: 10.1186/s12903-023-03110-y.
  10. Schwendicke, F., et al. (2016). Secondary caries and marginal adaptation of ion-releasing versus composite restorations: A systematic review.
  11. Mickenautsch, S., &Yengopal, V. (2016). Caries-preventive effect of glass ionomer and resin-based fissure sealants on permanent teeth: a meta-analysis.
  12. Sonbul HM. Influence of Bioactive Restorative Materials on Secondary Caries Prevention: A Clinical and In Vitro Study. J Pharm Bioallied Sci. 2025 Jun;17(Suppl 2):S1787–S1789. doi: 10.4103/jpbs.jpbs_350_25. Epub 2025 Jun 18.
  13. Balhaddad AA, Kansara AA, Hidan DH, Weir MD, Xu HHK, Melo MAS. Toward dental caries: Exploring nanoparticle-based platforms and calcium phosphate compounds for dental restorative materials. Bioact Mater. 2018;4(1):43–55. doi: 10.1016/j.bioactmat.2018.12.002. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Mushashe AM, de Almeida SA, Ferracane JL, Merritt J, Correr GM. Effect of biofilm exposure on marginal integrity of composite restorations. Am J Dent. 2020 Aug;33(4):201–205. PMID: 32794395; PMCID: PMC8136684.
Special Issue Subscription Original Research
Volume 14
Special Issue 01
Received 01/12/2025
Accepted 17/12/2025
Published 11/02/2026
Publication Time 72 Days
135

Login


My IP

PlumX Metrics