Abstract:Objectives
To perform a systematic review of test methodologies on conventional restorative glass-ionomer cement (GIC) materials for mechanical and optical properties to compare the results between different GICs.
Material and Methods
Screening of titles and abstracts, data extraction, and quality assessments of full-texts were conducted in search for
in vitro
studies on conventional GICs that follow the relevant specifications of ISO standard… Show more
“…Many elderly patients have an adverse, highly acidic oral environment, which could be due to salivary gland side effects of prescribed or over-the-counter medicines, systemic disease (particularly diabetes mellitus and subclinical dehydration), or various forms of gastric reflux [ 1 , 2 ]. GIC restorations can act as a biomimetic dentine replacement, having similar thermal expansion properties to natural tooth structures, or as a bulk restorative for use in sites with low compressive loads [ 3 ]. Their common applications are for restoring carious lesions located on root surfaces, or interdentally (using the sandwich technique, where they are overlaid with a resin composite material).…”
In view of the need for aesthetics, restorations of teeth will typically be completed using tooth colored restorative materials. With the advent of biomimetic restorative materials, such as glass ionomer cements (GIC), much greater emphasis is now being placed on how well such materials can resist the challenge of acids that are present in foods and drinks, or gastric contents that are regurgitated. This laboratory study compared the dissolution and behavior of five GIC materials (GC Fuji® VII, GC Fuji® Bulk, GC Fuji® IX Fast, Fuji® IX Extra and GC Equia® Forte Fil) when exposed to three acids (citric acid, phosphoric acid and lactic acid), versus ultrapure deionized water, which was used as a control. Discs of each material GIC were submerged in solutions and percentage weight changes over time determined. Subsequently, the GIC materials were also placed as a part of standardized Class II sandwich restorations in bovine teeth (n = 20), and submerged in the solutions, and the extent of GIC dissolution and protection of the adjacent tooth was scored. Weight loss increased with time and with acid concentration. Overall, the most soluble material was GC Fuji® IX Extra, while GC Fuji® IX Fast and GC Fuji® Bulk were less soluble, and the least soluble material was GC Equia® Forte Fil. The most destructive solution for both the discs and for GIC restorations in teeth was 10% citric acid, while the least destructive acid was 0.1% lactic acid. The more recent GIC materials GC Fuji® Bulk and GC Equia® Forte Fil showed increased acid resistance over the older GIC materials, and this further justifies their use in open sandwich Class II restorations in more hostile environments.
“…Many elderly patients have an adverse, highly acidic oral environment, which could be due to salivary gland side effects of prescribed or over-the-counter medicines, systemic disease (particularly diabetes mellitus and subclinical dehydration), or various forms of gastric reflux [ 1 , 2 ]. GIC restorations can act as a biomimetic dentine replacement, having similar thermal expansion properties to natural tooth structures, or as a bulk restorative for use in sites with low compressive loads [ 3 ]. Their common applications are for restoring carious lesions located on root surfaces, or interdentally (using the sandwich technique, where they are overlaid with a resin composite material).…”
In view of the need for aesthetics, restorations of teeth will typically be completed using tooth colored restorative materials. With the advent of biomimetic restorative materials, such as glass ionomer cements (GIC), much greater emphasis is now being placed on how well such materials can resist the challenge of acids that are present in foods and drinks, or gastric contents that are regurgitated. This laboratory study compared the dissolution and behavior of five GIC materials (GC Fuji® VII, GC Fuji® Bulk, GC Fuji® IX Fast, Fuji® IX Extra and GC Equia® Forte Fil) when exposed to three acids (citric acid, phosphoric acid and lactic acid), versus ultrapure deionized water, which was used as a control. Discs of each material GIC were submerged in solutions and percentage weight changes over time determined. Subsequently, the GIC materials were also placed as a part of standardized Class II sandwich restorations in bovine teeth (n = 20), and submerged in the solutions, and the extent of GIC dissolution and protection of the adjacent tooth was scored. Weight loss increased with time and with acid concentration. Overall, the most soluble material was GC Fuji® IX Extra, while GC Fuji® IX Fast and GC Fuji® Bulk were less soluble, and the least soluble material was GC Equia® Forte Fil. The most destructive solution for both the discs and for GIC restorations in teeth was 10% citric acid, while the least destructive acid was 0.1% lactic acid. The more recent GIC materials GC Fuji® Bulk and GC Equia® Forte Fil showed increased acid resistance over the older GIC materials, and this further justifies their use in open sandwich Class II restorations in more hostile environments.
“…Unfortunately, no study in the literature followed exactly the ISO requirements, preventing any chance of comparison among outcomes. 17 The DTS and KH values have been accepted for clinical application for most GICs tested in this study; the FS results point to a need for enhancement of some conventional GICs. The GICs with highest FS values were GL2, EF, GL9 and IS.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 68%
“…16 Many studies test and compare the CS among different conventional GICs, however it is impossible to compare them due to differences in the methodological approaches of most studies reported. 17 The ISO is responsible for developing and publishing international standards in order to ensure quality, safety and efficiency of products, services and systems around the globe. 18 However, most researchers do not completely follow these specifications, altering some features such as the specimen's dimensions, storage and testing time.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…18 However, most researchers do not completely follow these specifications, altering some features such as the specimen's dimensions, storage and testing time. Previous authors have evaluated mechanical properties of GICs but only one of them used the standardized testing protocols established by ISO exactly to test CS, making it harder to compare results of different studies 17 . In addition, operator variables may affect the results, such as in cement manipulation and temperature control.…”
The objective was to evaluate the compressive strength (CS), diametral tensile strength (DTS), flexural strength (FS), and Knoop microhardness (KH) of different conventional restorative glass-ionomer cements (GICs) and to correlate these mechanical properties (MP) with the stabilization time (ST) of their chemical bonds.
“…However, the color stability offered by these reinforced glass ionomer cements may not, in their current form, be adequate for their use as anterior esthetic restorations. International Journal of Dentistry e relationship between the nature of the reinforcing particle, the powder liquid ratio, and solubility of the glass ionomer cement has been extensively documented in the literature [2,3,6,21]. One of the suggested advantages of using nanoparticles is that, given their low size, it is possible to maintain suggested powder liquid ratios and still achieve a sustainable aluminofluorosilicate gel matrix [6].…”
Aim. This study aimed to compare the staining characteristics of a commercially available restorative glass ionomer cement to a formulation reinforced by the addition of carbon nanotubes and another formulation reinforced by the addition of silver nanoparticles to the powder of the same cement. Methodology. Twenty samples each of a control glass ionomer cement (PULPDENT® Glass Fill®, Pulpdent Corp. Watertown, MA, USA), control cement reinforced with 0.0006 gm (0.03% by weight) of carbon nanotubes (Sigma Aldrich, St Louis MO, USA), and control cement reinforced with 0.2 gm (10% by weight) of silver nanoparticles (Nanocyl™, Nanocyl SA, Sambreville, Belgium) were immersed in a staining solution. Color evaluations were carried out after 1 h, 24 h, and 1 week. Color change values were calculated. Results. The results indicated that carbon nanotube reinforced specimens exhibited less color stability when compared to controlled glass ionomer cement specimens; however, both samples had significantly greater color stability than silver nanoparticle reinforced glass ionomer samples. Conclusion. It can be concluded within the limitations of this study that carbon nanotube reinforced glass ionomer cements have better color stability than silver nanoparticle reinforced glass ionomer cements.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.