BACKGROUND: This study aimed to conduct a clinical evaluation of four restorative materials for restoration of dental wedge-shaped defect (WSD) and their impacts on periodontal tissues.

MATERIAL AND METHODS: A total of 280 maxillary premolars with dental WSD were selected from 106 patients; the patient cases were divided into eight groups according to different combinations of restorative materials (flowable resin composites, Dyract compomers, glass ionomer cement (GIC), light-curing composite resin), and WSD positions (approaching gingival and subgingival positions). Gingival crevicular fluid (GCF) volume, levels of aspartate aminotransferase (AST), alkaline phosphatase (ALP), and interleukin-1β (IL-1β) in GCF were analyzed, while probing depth (PD), plaque index (PLI), and sulcus bleeding index (SBI) were also measured. The periodontal conditions of all patients were followed prior to restoration, as well as six months and 12 months after restoration.

RESULTS: After six months of restoration, the overall clinical success rates of flowable resin composites, Dyract compomers, and light-curing composite resin were greater than those of GIC. GCF volume, GCF-AST, IL-1β levels, PD, PLI, and SBI of cases restored by GIC were higher than those restored by the other three materials. After 12 months of restoration, the overall clinical success rates of flowable resin composites and Dyract compomers were greater than those of light-curing composite resin and GIC. GCF volume, GCF-AST, GCF-ALP, IL-1β levels, PD, PLI, and SBI of cases restored by GIC were higher than those restored by the other three materials.

CONCLUSIONS: Our study provided evidence that the clinical efficacy of flowable resin composites, Dyract compomers, and light-curing composite resin was greater than that of GIC for restoration of dental WSD.

Keywords: Composite Resins, Glass Ionomer Cements, Wedge Argument