Assessment of Glass Ionomer Cements (GIC) Restorations after Acidic Erosive Challenges:An invitroStudy

Abstract

Objective: To analyze the marginal adaptation of two different Glass Ionomer Cements (GIC) after erosive challenges. Material and Methods: Sixty sound extracted primary canines were selected and class V cavities were made. Teeth were allocated into 6 groups according to restorative material: 1) high-viscosity GIC (Ketac™Molar Easymix) and 2) resin-modified GIC with nanoparticles (Ketac™N100), low pH beverage erosive challenge (Orange juice and Coca-Cola) or distilled water as control. Thereafter the sample was restored and subjecting to thermocycling. The sample was immersed for a 10-days period for the erosive simulation and then embedded in methylene blue solution during 4 hours. Finally teeth were sectioned for further analysis. Marginal adaptation test was performed by two trained examiners using the Salama et al. criteria. Descriptive and Kruskal-Wallis test (α=5%) were used to analyze the data. Results: The groups treated with Ketac™Molar EasyMix were similar in terms of marginal sealing ability when submitted to Orange juice and Coca-Cola but significantly worse than water. For samples restored with the Ketac™N100 the worst results were found in the Coca-Cola group. Conclusion: Erosive challenges with acidic drinks affected the marginal adaptation of the tested GIC.

Conventional and Resin-Modified Glass Ionomer Cement Surface Characteristics after Acidic Challenges

“…The behavior of materials in acid challenges depends on the chemical structure. Previous studies have also shown a tendency of surface degradation when these materials were exposed to acidic and alcoholic beverages action [ 38 , 39 , 40 ]. The consumption of soft drinks over a long period of time can induce erosive wear of restorative materials [ 41 , 42 , 43 ].…”

Comparative Evaluation of the Microleakage of Glass Ionomers as Restorative Materials: A Systematic Review of In Vitro Studies

“…All the included studies were in vitro studies published between 1993 and 2021. Of them, 1 study was conducted in Turkey [44], 1 in the USA [52], 1 in Egypt [27], 1 in Iraq [39], 1 in Indonesia [43], 2 in Belgium [48,49], 3 in Brazil [42,50,51] and 5 in India [40,41,[45][46][47]. The sample size varied from 15 to 200 teeth; a total of 1159 teeth were evaluated.…”

“…The prepared cavities were classified as Class V except in two studies, where Class I was also used [45,46], and in one study, where the authors performed restorations of bacterial artificial root caries [50]. The selected teeth varied, with 5 studies on extracted primary teeth [39][40][41][42][43] and 10 studies on extracted permanent teeth [27,[44][45][46][47][48][49][50][51][52]. Sound teeth were selected in most studies except one study on primary teeth [41] and one on permanent teeth [46], where caries teeth were selected.…”

“…Conventional GIC restorative materials used were Fuji II [40,47,48,52], Fuji IX [39,41,43,45,46,48], Equia Fil [27,44], Riva Self Cure [44], Ketac Fil [52], Ketac Fil Plus [49,50], Ketac Molar Easymix [42], and Ionofil Molar [49]. RMGICs used were Fuji II LC [27,[39][40][41]43,45,47,48,51,52], Fuji VIII [48], Vitremer [50,51], and Photac Fil [49,52].…”

“…RMGICs used were Fuji II LC [27,[39][40][41]43,45,47,48,51,52], Fuji VIII [48], Vitremer [50,51], and Photac Fil [49,52]. Other materials used were GICs reinforced with nano-zirconia fillers (Zirconomer Improved) [44], nano-filled carbonized glass (glass carbomer: Glass Fill) [44], bioactive ionic resin (Activa Bioactive Restorative) (27), highly reactive glass (hybrid GIC: Equia Forte) (41), and nanofilled RMGIC (Ketac N100) [42,43,[45][46][47]. Other materials evaluated in the selected studies were Vitremer finishing gloss, Fuji Coat LC, G-Goat Plus, Ketac Primer, Icon, and Fuji Varnish II.…”