Objectives: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of several surface protectors for a glass ionomer, a resin-modified glass-ionomer and a polyacid-modified resin cement by determining dye uptake spectrophotometrically Methods: 378 specimens, 4.0 mm in diameter and 2.0 mm in height, were made with Ionofil U (Voco), Vitremer (3M) and Dyract (Detrey Dentsply) and were divided into seven groups for each material. The positive and negative control specimens remained unprotected; while the experimental specimens were protected with Finishing Gloss (3M), Protect it (Jeneric Pentron), LC Varnish (Spofa Dental), Single Bond (3M) and Colorama nail varnish. The experimental group and positive controls were immersed in %0.05 methylene blue solution while the negative control group was immersed in deioonized water. After 24 hours the discs were washed and the surface coatings were trimmed with Sof-Lex (3M) discs. The specimens were then removed from the matrixes and individually placed in 2mL of nitric acid for 24 hours. The absorbance was determined by a spectrophotometer at 600 nm. The dye uptake was expressed in micrograms of dye per milliliter and the results were evaluated using variance analysis. Results: For the Ionofil U group Single Bond was the least effective surface coating among the tested materials, while in the Dyract group, the best surface protection was obtained with Finishing Gloss. But no differences were observed for the evaluated protections in the Vitremer group.
Conclusion: Although there were some differences among the effectiveness of the tested surface coatings, all of the restorative materials required surface protection.