Comparative Evaluation of Postoperative Sensitivity Using Three Different Tooth-Colored Restorative Materials in Non-carious Cervical Lesions: A Split-Mouth Design In Vivo Study

IntroductionThree different tooth-colored restorative materials were evaluated and compared for postoperative sensitivity using a split-mouth design. This is a double-blinded clinical trial assessed for a one-month follow-up period in patients with non-carious cervical lesions (NCCLs).Materials and MethodsA total of 60 NCCLs in 20 participants were considered in this split-mouth design study and randomly divided into three different groups: Flowable composite (n = 20), resin-modified glass ionomer cement (RMGIC) (n = 20), and Zirconomer® (n = 20). The restorations were evaluated for postoperative sensitivity at baseline (BL-day 0), three, seven, and 21 days using the Schiff cold air sensitivity scale. Data were analyzed using IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 23.0 (Released 2015; IBM Corp., Armonk, New York, United States) using a post hoc test for postoperative sensitivity and one-way Anova to analyze all the groups together at the time interval of three, seven, and 21 days.ResultsIn Group 1 (flowable composites) and Group 3 (Zirconomer), a statistically significant difference in terms of reduced postoperative sensitivity was seen after three and seven days. However, a significant reduction in postoperative sensitivity was seen after three, seven, and 21 days in Group 2 (RMGIC).ConclusionIn this study, RMGIC showed reduced postoperative sensitivity after restoring NCCLs compared to Zirconomer and flowable composites. Compared with flowable composites and Zirconomer, RMGIC showed better clinical performance in terms of less postoperative sensitivity after restoring NCCLs.