In vitro comparative study of sorption and solubility of three modified glass ionomer cements

Abstract

Aim: To evaluate and compare the sorption and solubility of three modified glass ionomer cements –Glass Hybrid Restorative System (Equiaforte), Zirconomer Improved and resin modified glass ionomer cement (RMGIC) in artificial saliva. Materials And Methods: A total of 45cylindrical specimens (4mm diameter and 6mm height) were prepared for each material following the manufacturer’s instructions. After subjecting the specimens to thermocycling of 500 cycles between 5 and 55 degree Celsius with the dwell time 15secs,45 specimens evaluated for sorption and solubility, first weighing them by a precision weighing scale (W1), then immersing them in artificial saliva for 28days and weighing them(W2), and finally dehydratingin an oven for 24 hours and weighing them(W3). Since the obtained values show normal distribution differences between the groups data were analyzed using the one way analysis of variance (ANOVA). For pairwise evaluation between the groups post hoc dunnet t3 test was used. Results: The sorption and solubility values in artificial saliva were minimum for zirconomer improved glass ionomer cement with the mean value of sorption 52.91 ± 1.73 µg/mm3 and solubility 10.47 ± 1.52 µg/mm3 when compared with other groups.The difference between groups was found to be statistically significant (p<0.05) in terms of sorption and solubility.

A Comprehensive Evaluation of Zirconia-Reinforced Glass Ionomer Cement’s Effectiveness in Dental Caries: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis

“…Upon eliminating duplicates, 901 articles underwent title and abstract screening. Following this stage, a thorough evaluation of 19 full-text articles was undertaken, resulting in the inclusion of 16 studies [ 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 ], which encompassed systematic reviews and network meta-analyses.…”

“…Among the 16 studies incorporated in the review, 7 [ 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 ] solely assessed compressive strength, while 1 study [ 21 ] evaluated both compressive strength and microleakage. Within this subset, eight studies [ 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 ] concentrated solely on microleakage.…”

“…Notably, all studies employed cylindrical cement specimens, albeit with varying measurements. The number of comparators ranged from one in two studies [ 24 , 25 ] to two in three studies [ 21 , 22 , 27 ], three in one study [ 26 ], four in another [ 28 ], and five in a single study [ 23 ]. In the context of specific cement types, five studies encompassed high-viscosity glass ionomer cements [ 21 , 22 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 28 ], while four studies involved giomer [ 21 , 23 , 26 , 28 ].…”

“…For silver-reinforced glass ionomer cement, there was one study [ 22 ], and similarly, one study pertained to glass carbomer [ 28 ]. Resin-modified glass ionomer cement [ 23 , 27 ], compomer [ 23 , 26 ], glass hybrid [ 23 , 27 ], and amalgomer CR [ 23 , 28 ] each featured in two studies. Across these investigations, the findings generally suggested that the compressive strength of giomer, compomer, and high-viscosity glass ionomer cements surpassed that of zirconia-reinforced glass ionomer cement.…”

“…A comprehensive risk of bias assessment was carried out for all the studies included in the analysis. Out of these, thirteen studies [ 21 , 22 , 23 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 30 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 ] were found to have a moderate risk of bias, while two studies [ 24 , 31 ] were identified as having a high risk of bias. In contrast, only one study [ 29 ] showed a low risk of bias.…”