No abstract

Objective The aim of this review was to provide an insight about the factors affecting the properties of glass ionomer cements and provides a review regarding studies that are related to modification of glass ionomer cements to improve their properties, particularly on physical‐mechanical and antimicrobial activity. Methods PubMed and Science Direct were searched for papers published between the years 1974 and 2018. The search was restricted to articles written in English related to modification of glass ionomer cements. Only articles published in peer‐reviewed journals were included. The search included literature reviews, in vitro, and in vivo studies. Articles written in other languages, without available abstracts and those related to other field were excluded. About 198 peer‐review articles in the English language were reviewed. Conclusion Based on the finding, most of the modification has improved physical‐mechanical properties of glass ionomer cements. Recently, researchers have attempted to improve their antimicrobial properties. However, the attempts were reported to compromise the physical‐mechanical properties of modified glass ionomer cements. Clinical significance As the modification of glass ionomer cement with different material improved the physical‐mechanical and antimicrobial properties, it could be used as restorative material for wider application in dentistry.

This study aimed to investigate the effects of nanohydroxyapatite–silica–glass ionomer cement (nanoHA–silica–GIC) on the differentiation of dental pulp stem cells (DPSCs) into odontogenic lineage. DPSCs were cultured in complete Minimum Essential Medium Eagle—Alpha Modification (α-MEM) with or without nanoHA–silica–GIC extract and conventional glass ionomer cement (cGIC) extract. Odontogenic differentiation of DPSCs was evaluated by real-time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (rRT–PCR) for odontogenic markers: dentin sialophosphoprotein (DSPP), dentin matrix protein 1 (DMP1), osteocalcin (OCN), osteopontin (OPN), alkaline phosphatase (ALP), collagen type I (COL1A1), and runt-related transcription factor 2 (RUNX2) on day 1, 7, 10, 14, and 21, which were normalized to the house keeping gene glyceraldehyde-3-phosphate dehydrogenase (GAPDH). Untreated DPSCs were used as a control throughout the study. The expressions of DSPP and DMP1 were higher on days 7 and 10, that of OCN on day 10, those of OPN and ALP on day 14, and that of RUNX2 on day 1; COL1A1 exhibited a time-dependent increase from day 7 to day 14. Despite the above time-dependent variations, the expressions were comparable at a concentration of 6.25 mg/mL between the nanoHA–silica–GIC and cGIC groups. This offers empirical support that nanoHA–silica–GIC plays a role in the odontogenic differentiation of DPSCs.