Comparative Evaluation of Microleakage in Type II GIC, Type IX GIC, and Resin-Modified GIC in Primary Teeth: An In Vitro Study
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.48165/ajm.2026.9.01.34Keywords:
Microleakage, GIC, RMGICAbstract
Aim: This study aimed to evaluate and compare the microleakage of Type II glass ionomer cement (GIC), Type IX GIC, and resin-modified glass ionomer cement (RMGIC) restorations in primary teeth. Materials and Methods: Thirty over-retained, non-carious primary molars beyond their exfoliation period were collected and randomly divided into three groups (n = 10 each). Group A: Type II GIC; Group B: Type IX GIC; Group C: RMGIC. Standardized Class V cavities were prepared on the buccal surface of each tooth without mechanical retention and restored with the respective materials. All samples were subjected to thermocycling for 250 cycles at varying temperatures, followed by coating with nail varnish. The specimens were then immersed in 0.5% methylene blue dye for 24 hours. Teeth were sectioned buccolingually through the center of the restoration and evaluated under a stereomicroscope for dye penetration. The data obtained were analyzed using Kruskal–Wallis ANOVA and Mann– Whitney U test. Results: The RMGIC group demonstrated comparatively higher microleakage than the other groups. However, no statistically significant difference was observed among the three groups (P > 0.05). Conclusion: Within the limitations of this study, Type II GIC, Type IX GIC, and RMGIC showed comparable microleakage performance in primary teeth.
References
Dhar, V., Hsu, K. L., Coll, J. A., Ginsberg, E., Ball, B. M., Chhibber, S., Johnson, M., Kim, M., Modaresi, N., & Tinanoff, N. (2015). Evidence-based update of pediatric dental restorative procedures: Dental materials. Journal of Clinical Pediatric Dentistry, 39(4), 303–310.
Snehi, Pathivada, L., Garg, N., Karthik, K. M., Bhyri, P., & Koyande, A. (2025). Comparative evaluation of marginal microleakage of different forms of glass ionomer cements in primary molars: An in vitro study. International Journal of Clinical Pediatric Dentistry, 18(5), 544–547.
Bollu, I. P., Hari, A., Thumu, J., et al. (2016). Comparative evaluation of microleakage between nano-ionomer, giomer and resin-modified glass ionomer cement in Class V cavities—CLSM study. Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research, 10(5), 66–70.
Salman, K. M., Naik, S. B., Kumar, N. K., et al. (2019). Comparative evaluation of microleakage in Class V cavities restored with giomer, resin-modified glass ionomer, zirconomer and nano-ionomer: An in vitro study. Journal of International Clinical Dental Research Organization, 11(1), 20–25.
Omidi, B. R., Naeini, F. F., Dehghan, H., et al. (2018). Microleakage of an enhanced resin-modified glass ionomer restorative material in primary molars. Journal of Dentistry, 15(4), 205–213.
Diem, V. T. K., Tyas, M. J., Ngo, H. C., et al. (2014). The effect of a nano-filled resin coating on the 3-year clinical performance of a conventional high-viscosity glass-ionomer cement. Clinical Oral Investigations, 18(3), 753–759.
Khera, S. C., & Chan, K. C. (1978). Microleakage and enamel finish. Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry, 39(4), 414–419. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-3913(78)80159-0
Shruthi, A. S., Nagaveni, N. B., Poornima, P., Selvamani, M., Madhushankari, G. S., & Subba Reddy, V. V. (2015). Comparative evaluation of microleakage of conventional and modifications of glass ionomer cement in primary teeth: An in vitro study. Journal of Indian Society of Pedodontics and Preventive Dentistry, 33(4), 279–284.
Gurgan, S., Kutuk, Z. B., Ergin, E., et al. (2015). Four-year randomized clinical trial to evaluate the clinical performance of a glass ionomer restorative system. Operative Dentistry, 40(2), 134–143.
Somani, R., Jaidka, S., Jawa, D., & Mishra, S. (2014). Comparative evaluation of microleakage in conventional glass ionomer cements and triclosan incorporated glass ionomer cements. Contemporary Clinical Dentistry, 5(1), 85–88.
Gupta, S. K., Gupta, J., Saraswathi, V., Ballal, S., & Acharya, S. R. (2012). Comparative evaluation of microleakage in Class V cavities using various glass ionomer cements: An in vitro study. Journal of Interdisciplinary Dentistry, 2, 164–169.
Diwanji, A., Dhar, V., Arora, R., Madhusudan, A., & Rathore, A. S. (2014). Comparative evaluation of microleakage of three restorative glass ionomer cements: An in vitro study. Journal of Natural Science, Biology and Medicine, 5(2), 373–377.
Pavuluri, C., Nuvvula, S., Kamatham, R. L., & Nirmala, S. (2014). Comparative evaluation of microleakage in conventional and RMGIC restorations following conventional and chemomechanical caries removal: An in vitro study. International Journal of Clinical Pediatric Dentistry, 7(3), 172–175.
Hubel, S., & Mejare, I. (2003). Conventional versus resin-modified glass ionomer cement for Class II restorations in primary molars: A 3-year clinical study. International Journal of Paediatric Dentistry, 13(1), 2–8.
