Clinical outcomes of composite restorations with or without a glass ionomer liner after selective caries removal to soft dentin: a 36-month randomized controlled trial
- 1Cariology Unit, Department of Oral Rehabilitation, Faculty of Dentistry, University of Talca, Talca, Chile
- 2Department of Preventive and Social Dentistry, Faculty of Odontology, Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre, RS Brazil
Abstract
Objectives: Selective caries removal to soft dentin (SCR-SD) is currently recommended for the management of deep dentine caries lesions in permanent teeth. However, whether a pulp-protective liner is required after SCR-SD remains uncertain. This randomized controlled trial compared the clinical performance and pulp vitality outcomes of composite resin restorations using a universal adhesive with or without a glass ionomer cement (GIC) liner after SCR-SD in deep caries lesions of permanent posterior teeth.
Methods: A randomized controlled clinical trial was conducted in 144 deep dentin caries lesions from 98 participants aged 9 to 55 years. After SCR-SD, lesions were randomly allocated to one of two restorative strategies: a universal adhesive applied in selective enamel etching mode (SE) and composite resin without a GIC liner, or a conventional GIC liner followed by the same universal adhesive applied in selective enamel etching mode and composite resin (GIC + SE). Restorations were followed for 30–36 months. The primary outcome was restoration survival, assessed using selected FDI criteria. The secondary outcome was pulp vitality preservation. Survival analyses were performed using Weibull regression models.
Results: Of the 144 treated lesions, 117 were evaluated after 30–36 months. Restoration survival did not differ significantly between groups, with survival rates of 96.0% for SE and 92.4% for GIC + SE (p = 0.37). In contrast, pulp vitality preservation was significantly higher in the SE group than in the GIC + SE group, with success rates of 97.5% and 87.3%, respectively (p = 0.01). In the adjusted Weibull regression model, SE was associated with a lower risk of pulp vitality failure compared with GIC + SE. Restorative failure was also strongly associated with pulp vitality failure.
Conclusions: The use of a GIC liner after SCR-SD did not improve restoration survival and was not associated with better pulp vitality preservation. Composite restorations using universal adhesive applied in selective enamel etching mode placed directly over the remaining dentin showed favorable restorative and biological outcomes after 30–36 months. These findings suggest that routine liner placement after SCR-SD may not be necessary.
Clinical significance: In deep dentin caries lesions treated with SCR-SD, placing a glass ionomer liner before composite restoration using a universal adhesive did not improve clinical outcomes. Effective sealing is achieved using universal adhesive applied in selective enamel etching mode and nanofilled composite resin. These simple clinical procedures maintained the restoration integrity and pulp vitality.
Registered on https://www.clinicaltrials.gov(NCT04250142).
Related
- Radiographic appearance of proximal resin composite restorations bonded with a radiopaque or radiolucent universal adhesive: a randomized clinical trial
- Comparative evaluation of shear bond strength of composite restorations and glass-incorporated restorations with calcium silicate-based cement liner: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
- Skin color affect the replacement of amalgam for composite in posterior restorations: a birth-cohort study
- Effect of different surface preparation methods on shear bond strength of aged microhybrid composite restorations
- Effects of Yeast Protein–Whey Protein Composite Supplementation on Recovery from Exercise-Induced Muscle Damage in Well-Trained Athletes: A Randomized Controlled Trial
BibTeX
@article{munozsandoval2026clinical,
title = {{Clinical outcomes of composite restorations with or without a glass ionomer liner after selective caries removal to soft dentin: a 36-month randomized controlled trial}},
author = {Cecilia Muñoz-Sandoval and Juliana J. Jardim and Karla Gambetta-Tessini and Rodrigo A. Giacaman and Marisa Maltz},
journal = {Clinical Oral Investigations},
year = {2026},
month = nov,
doi = {10.1007/s00784-026-07209-8},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-026-07209-8},
note = {CC BY 4.0},
}
RIS
TY - JOUR
TI - Clinical outcomes of composite restorations with or without a glass ionomer liner after selective caries removal to soft dentin: a 36-month randomized controlled trial
AU - Cecilia Muñoz-Sandoval
AU - Juliana J. Jardim
AU - Karla Gambetta-Tessini
AU - Rodrigo A. Giacaman
AU - Marisa Maltz
PY - 2026
DA - 2026/11/05
JO - Clinical Oral Investigations
DO - 10.1007/s00784-026-07209-8
UR - https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-026-07209-8
AB - Objectives: Selective caries removal to soft dentin (SCR-SD) is currently recommended for the management of deep dentine caries lesions in permanent teeth. However, whether a pulp-protective liner is required after SCR-SD remains uncertain. This randomized controlled trial compared the clinical performance and pulp vitality outcomes of composite resin restorations using a universal adhesive with or without a glass ionomer cement (GIC) liner after SCR-SD in deep caries lesions of permanent posterior teeth. Methods: A randomized controlled clinical trial was conducted in 144 deep dentin caries lesions from 98 participants aged 9 to 55 years. After SCR-SD, lesions were randomly allocated to one of two restorative strategies: a universal adhesive applied in selective enamel etching mode (SE) and composite resin without a GIC liner, or a conventional GIC liner followed by the same universal adhesive applied in selective enamel etching mode and composite resin (GIC + SE). Restorations were followed for 30–36 months. The primary outcome was restoration survival, assessed using selected FDI criteria. The secondary outcome was pulp vitality preservation. Survival analyses were performed using Weibull regression models. Results: Of the 144 treated lesions, 117 were evaluated after 30–36 months. Restoration survival did not differ significantly between groups, with survival rates of 96.0% for SE and 92.4% for GIC + SE (p = 0.37). In contrast, pulp vitality preservation was significantly higher in the SE group than in the GIC + SE group, with success rates of 97.5% and 87.3%, respectively (p = 0.01). In the adjusted Weibull regression model, SE was associated with a lower risk of pulp vitality failure compared with GIC + SE. Restorative failure was also strongly associated with pulp vitality failure. Conclusions: The use of a GIC liner after SCR-SD did not improve restoration survival and was not associated with better pulp vitality preservation. Composite restorations using universal adhesive applied in selective enamel etching mode placed directly over the remaining dentin showed favorable restorative and biological outcomes after 30–36 months. These findings suggest that routine liner placement after SCR-SD may not be necessary. Clinical significance: In deep dentin caries lesions treated with SCR-SD, placing a glass ionomer liner before composite restoration using a universal adhesive did not improve clinical outcomes. Effective sealing is achieved using universal adhesive applied in selective enamel etching mode and nanofilled composite resin. These simple clinical procedures maintained the restoration integrity and pulp vitality. Registered on https://www.clinicaltrials.gov(NCT04250142).
SN - 1432-6981
SN - 1436-3771
ER -