Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Review
  • Published:

Evaluation of the clinical performance of GIOMERs and comparison with other conventional restorative materials in permanent teeth: a systematic review and meta-analysis


Aim The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to analyse the clinical performance of GIOMER restorative composites and compare them with other conventional restorative materials in permanent teeth.

Methods Searches in PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, Ovid and Cochrane Library were conducted. Grey literature search was also performed. Clinical trials that evaluated the clinical performance of restorations with GIOMER restorative composites in permanent teeth compared to those using composite resin, glass ionomer cement, resin-modified glass ionomer cement (RMGIC) and other GIOMERs were included. Meta-analyses comparing GIOMER restorative composites with RMGIC at 6- and 12-month follow-ups and comparing two types of GIOMER were feasible.

Results Ten studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria. In these studies, GIOMER was compared to different types of dental restoration materials. Dental restorations were evaluated by United States Public Health Service criteria in all included studies. Four studies were suitable for meta-analysis, which showed significant differences between GIOMER and RMGIC surface roughness at 6-month (odds ratio [OR] = 6.56; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 2.38-18.13) and 12-month (OR = 8.76; CI = 3.19-24.07) follow-ups. No significant differences between GIOMER restorative composites and RMGIC for marginal adaptation were found at 6- and 12-month follow-ups. When comparing two GIOMERs, significant differences were seen between Beautifil II and Beautifil Flowable Plus F00 for marginal staining (OR = 2.58; CI = 1.42-23.27; I2 = 0%) and surface roughness (OR = 4.59; CI = 1.11-18.97; I2 = 0%) at the 36-month follow-up. No significant differences between Beautifil II and Beautifil Flowable Plus F00 were seen for marginal adaptation and anatomic form at 6-, 18- and 36-month follow-ups.

Conclusions GIOMER restorative composites presented similar performance concerning marginal adaptation and better surface roughness when compared to RMGIC. GIOMER Beautifil II presented similar performance to GIOMER Beautifil Flow Plus F00 concerning marginal adaptation and anatomic form and worse marginal staining and surface roughness when compared to Beautifil Flowable Plus F00.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13
Fig. 14
Fig. 15
Fig. 16
Fig. 17
Fig. 18

Similar content being viewed by others


  1. Demarco F F, Collares K, Correa M B, Cenci M S, Moraes R R, Opdam N J. Should my composite restorations last forever? Why are they failing? Braz Oral Res 2017; DOI: 10.1590/1807-3107BOR-2017.vol31.0056.

  2. Ferracane J L. Resin composite - state of the art. Dent Mater 2011; 27: 29-38.

  3. Fuss M, Wicht M J, Attin T, Derman S H M, Noack M J. Protective Buffering Capacity of Restorative Dental Materials In Vitro. J Adhes Dent 2017; 19: 177-183.

  4. Mickenautsch S, Yengopal V. Demineralization of hard tooth tissue adjacent to resin-modified glass-ionomers and composite resins: a quantitative systematic review. J Oral Sci 2010; 52: 347-357.

  5. Chau N P T, Pandit S, Jung J-E, Cai J-N, Yi H-K, Jeon J-G. Long-term anti-cariogenic biofilm activity of glass ionomers related to fluoride release. J Dent 2016; 47: 34-40.

  6. Kaga M, Kakuda S, Ida Y et al. Inhibition of enamel demineralization by buffering effect of S -PRG filler-containing dental sealant. Eur J Oral Sci 2014; 122: 78-83.

  7. Ikemura K, Tay F R, Endo T, Pashley D H. A review of chemical-approach and ultramorphological studies on the development of fluoride-releasing dental adhesives comprising new pre-reacted glass ionomer (PRG) fillers. Dent Mater J 2008; 27: 315-339.

  8. Hajira N S W N and Meena N. GIOMER - The Intelligent Particle (New Generation Glass Ionomer Cement). Int J Dent Oral Health 2016; 2: 1-5.

  9. Salmerón-Valdés E N, Scougall-Vilchis R J, Alanis-Tavira J, Morales-Luckie R A. Comparative study of fluoride released and recharged from conventional pit and fissure sealants versus surface prereacted glass ionomer technology. J Conserv Dent 2016; 19: 41-45.

  10. Wiegand A, Buchalla W, Attin T. Review on fluoride-releasing restorative materials-Fluoride release and uptake characteristics, antibacterial activity and influence on caries formation. Dent Mater 2007; 23: 343-362.

  11. Gordan V V, Mondragon E, Watson R E, Garvan C, Mjör I A. A clinical evaluation of a self-etching primer and a giomer restorative material: results at eight years. J Am Dent Assoc 2007; 138: 621-627.

  12. Fujimoto Y, Iwasa M, Murayama R, Miyazaki M, Nagafuji A, Nakatsuka T. Detection of ions released from S -PRG fillers and their modulation effect. Dent Mater J 2010; 29: 392-397.

  13. Ozer F, Irmak O, Yakymiv O et al. Three-year Clinical Performance of Two Giomer Restorative Materials in Restorations. Oper Dent 2021; DOI: 10.2341/17-353-C.

  14. Gordan V V, Blaser P K, Watson R E et al. A clinical evaluation of a giomer restorative system containing surface prereacted glass ionomer filler: results from a 13-year recall examination. J Am Dent Assoc 2014; 145: 1036-1043.

  15. Shofu Dental. About Giomer. Available at (accessed September 2021).

  16. Ferracane J L, Bertassoni L E. Interface between Materials and Oral Biology. J Dent Res 2021; 100: 1009-1010.

  17. Takahashi Y, Okamoto M, Komichi S et al. Application of a direct pulp capping cement containing S -PRG filler. Clin Oral Investig 2019; 23: 1723-1731.

  18. Kaga N, Nagano-Takebe F, Nezu T, Matsuura T, Endo K, Kaga M. Protective Effects of GIC and S -PRG Filler Restoratives on Demineralization of Bovine Enamel in Lactic Acid Solution. Materials (Basel) 2020; 13: 2140.

  19. Gonulol N, Ozer S, Sen Tunc E. Water Sorption, Solubility, and Colour Stability of Giomer Restoratives. J Esthet Restor Dent 2015; 27: 300-306.

  20. Page M J, McKenzie J E, Bossuyt P M et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ 2021; DOI: 10.1136/bmj.n71.

  21. Higgins J P T, Thompson S G, Deeks J J, Altman D G. Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ 2003; 327: 557-560.

  22. Guyatt G H, Oxman A D, Kunz R et al. What is "quality of evidence" and why is it important to clinicians? BMJ 2008; 336: 995-998.

  23. Bolat M, Pancu G, Stoleriu S et al. Study regarding the modulation capacity of oral bacterial biofilms community climax of different restorative materials. Mater Plast 2016; 53: 761-764.

  24. Isler S C, Ozcan G, Ozcan M, Omurlu H. Clinical evaluation of combined surgical/ restorative treatment of gingival recession-type defects using different restorative materials: A randomized clinical trial. J Dent Sci 2018; 13: 20-29.

  25. Isler S C, Ozcan G, Akca G, Kocabas Z. The effects of different restorative materials on periodontopathogens in combined restorative-periodontal treatment. J Appl Oral Sci 2018; DOI: 10.1590/1678-7757-2017-0154.

  26. Taso E, Stefanovic V, Stevanovic I et al. Influence of Dental Restorations on Oxidative Stress in Gingival Crevicular Fluid. Oxid Med Cell Longev 2018; DOI: 10.1155/2018/1823189.

  27. Matis B A, Cochran M J, Carlson T J, Guba C, Eckert G J. A three-year clinical evaluation of two dentin bonding agents. J Am Dent Assoc 2004; 135: 451-457.

  28. Sunico M C, Shinkai K, Katoh Y. Two-year clinical performance of occlusal and cervical giomer restorations. Oper Dent 2005; 30: 282-289.

  29. Jyothi K, Annapurna S, Kumar A S, Venugopal P, Jayashankara C. Clinical evaluation of giomer -and resin-modified glass ionomer cement in class V noncarious cervical lesions: An in vivo study. J Conserv Dent 2011; 14: 409-413.

  30. Van Dijken J W V. A 6 -year prospective evaluation of a one-step HEMA-free self-etching adhesive in Class II restorations. Dent Mater 2013; 29: 1116-1122.

  31. Săvenau C I, Dănilă I. Restorations with composite resin and hybrid materials clinical study for class II cavities. Rev Med Chir Soc Med Nat Iasi 2010; 114: 233-238.

  32. Priyadarshini B I, Jayaprakash T, Nagesh B, Sunil C R, Sujana V, Deepa V L. One-year comparative evaluation of Ketac Nano with resin-modified glass ionomer cement and Giomer in noncarious cervical lesions: A randomized clinical trial. J Conserv Dent 2017; 20: 204-209.

  33. Türkoğlu O, Bağlar S, Bulut A C. Different restorative systems in non carious cervical lesions. Ann Dent Spec 2020; 8: 20-31.

  34. Mu H L, Tian F C, Wang X Y, Gao X J. Evaluation of wear property of Giomer and Universal composite in vivo. Beijing Da Xue Xue Bao Yi Xue Ban 2020; 53: 120-125.

  35. Abdel-karim U M, El-Eraky M, Etman W M. Three-year clinical evaluation of two nano-hybrid giomer restorative composites. Tanta Dent J 2014; 11: 213-222.

  36. Kurokawa H, Takamizawa T, Rikuta A, Tsubota K, Miyazaki M. Three-year clinical evaluation of posterior composite restorations placed with a single-step self-etch adhesive. J Oral Sci 2015; 57: 101-108.

  37. Gharechahi M, Moosavi H, Forghani M. Effect of Surface Roughness and Materials Composition on Biofilm Formation. J Biomater Nanobiotech 2012; 3: 541-546.

  38. Santos V R, Lucchesi J A, Cortelli S C, Amaral C M, Feres M, Duarte P M. Effects of glass ionomer and microfilled composite subgingival restorations on periodontal tissue and subgingival biofilm: a 6-month evaluation. J Periodontol 2007; 78: 1522-1528.

  39. Nassar C A, Nassar P O, Secundes M B, Busato Pdo M, Camilotti V. Composite resin restorations of non-carious cervical lesions in patients with diabetes mellitus and periodontal disease: pilot study. Acta Odontol Latinoam 2012; 25: 279-286.

  40. Santamaria M P, da Silva Feitosa D, Casati M Z, Nociti F H Jr, Sallum A W, Sallum E A. Randomized controlled clinical trial evaluating connective tissue graft plus resin-modified glass ionomer restoration for the treatment of gingival recession associated with non-carious cervical lesion: 2 -year follow-up. J Periodontol 2013; DOI: 10.1902/jop.2013.120447.

  41. Bouroundi K, Rodrigues J C. Flowable Resin Composites: A Systematic Review an Clinical Considerations. J Clin Diagn Res 2015; DOI: 10.7860/JCDR/2015/12294.6129.

  42. Lee I-B, Min S-H, Kim S-Y, Ferracane J. Slumping tendency and rheological properties of flowable composites. Dent Mater 2010; 26: 443-448.

Download references


This study was financed in part by Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior Brasil (CAPES), Finance Code 001. Lucas Guimarães Abreu is a research fellow of Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (CNPq) (404710/2018-2 and 310797/2019-5).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations



All listed authors have made substantial contributions to the paper and are responsible for their content. Clóvis Ciryllo Limonge contributed to the design of the study, bibliographic search, analysis and interpretation of data and drafting of the paper. André Martins das Neves contributed to the design of the study, bibliographic search, analysis and interpretation of data and drafting of the paper. Diandra Costa Arantes contributed to the design of the study, analysis and interpretation of data and drafting of the paper. Tassiana Cançado Melo Sá contributed to the design of the study, analysis and interpretation of data and drafting of the paper. Monica Yamauti contributed to the design of the study, critical review, proofreading and final approval of the paper. Claudia Silami de Magalhães contributed to drafting of the paper, proofreading and final approval of the paper. Lucas Guimarães Abreu contributed to the design of the study, bibliographic search, analysis and interpretation of data, drafting of the paper, proofreading and final approval of the paper. Allyson Nogueira Moreira contributed to the design of the study, critical review, proofreading and final approval of the paper.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Lucas Guimarães Abreu.

Ethics declarations

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Supplementary Information

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Neto, C., das Neves, A., Arantes, D. et al. Evaluation of the clinical performance of GIOMERs and comparison with other conventional restorative materials in permanent teeth: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Evid Based Dent (2022).

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI:

This article is cited by


Quick links