Microleakage of conventional, resin-modified, and nano-ionomer glass ionomer cement as primary teeth filling material

Madyarani, Dita; Nuraini, Prawati; Irmawati, Irmawati

doi:10.20473/j.djmkg.v47.i4.p194-197

Cited by 2 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 4 publications

(9 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…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.…”

Section: Study Characteristicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…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.…”

Section: Study Characteristicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Study Characteristicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…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]. 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].…”

Section: Study Characteristicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

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

Alsari,

Ghilotti,

Sanz

et al. 2024

Applied Sciences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study aimed to perform a qualitative synthesis of the available in vitro evidence on the microleakage of commercially available conventional glass ionomer cements (GICs), resin-modified glass ionomer cements (RMGICs), and modified glass ionomer cements with nano-fillers, zirconia, or bioactive glasses. A systematic review was conducted according to the PRISMA 2020 (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis) statement standards. The literature search was performed in Medline (via PubMed), Embase, Web of Science, and Scopus to identify relevant articles. Laboratory studies that evaluated microleakage of GICs, RMGICs, and modified glass ionomer cements with nano-fillers, zirconia, or bioactive glasses were eligible for inclusion. The QUIN risk of bias tool for the assessment of in vitro studies conducted in dentistry was used. After the study selection process, which included duplicate removal, title and abstract screening, and full-text assessment, 15 studies were included. A qualitative synthesis of the evidence is presented, including author data, year of publication, glass ionomer materials used, sample characteristics, microleakage technique and values, and main outcome measures for primary and permanent teeth. Although no statistically significant differences were found in numerous studies, most results showed that RMGICs exhibited less leakage than conventional GICs. All studies agreed that leakage was significantly higher at dentin margins. It was also higher at the gingival margin than at the occlusal margin. Nano-filled RMGICs Ketac N100, Equia Forte, and Zirconomer appear to have less microleakage than conventional GICs and RMGICs. Further investigations using a standardized procedure are needed to confirm the results.

show abstract

Section: Study Characteristicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Study Characteristicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Study Characteristicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Study Characteristicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

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

Alsari,

Ghilotti,

Sanz

et al. 2024

Applied Sciences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Therefore, it is recommended to use GIC to cement brackets post-bleaching. 13 Along with the development of materials in dentistry, it is necessary for these materials to be evaluated. The shear bond strength (SBS) test is one of the tests that is often used to analyze the attachment of dental materials to teeth.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Desensitizing agents’ post-bleaching effect on orthodontic bracket bond strength

Pamungkas,

Karunia,

Suparwitri

2024

Dent. J.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Nowadays, many patients wanting to bleach and do orthodontic treatment simultaneously, in-office bleaching is more favorable because of the instant results. However, in-office bleaching procedures result in severe enamel surface demineralization and decreasing the attachment of the orthodontic bracket. Applying a desensitizing agent after in-office bleaching can remineralize the enamel surface. There are two types of desensitizing agents: Fluoride-based and non-fluoride-based. Purpose: This study aims to analyze the effect of applying fluoride-based and non-fluoride-based desensitizing agents after in-office bleaching on orthodontic brackets. Methods: Twenty-seven post-extraction upper premolars were divided into three groups (n=9): Control group, fluoride-based group, and non-fluoride-based group. The samples were subjected to an in-office bleaching procedure before a fluoride desensitizing agent was applied to the fluoride group and a non-fluoride desensitizing agent was applied to the non-fluoride group. Then, a brackets bonding procedure was performed on all samples. The samples were tested for shear bond strength (SBS), and the adhesive remnant index (ARI) was measured. The data was analyzed by a one-way analysis of variance on the SBS test, while the ARI scores were analyzed by the Kruskal–Wallis test. Results: The fluoride and non-fluoride groups showed a significantly increased SBS of the brackets after in-office bleaching (P < 0.05), with the fluoride-based desensitizing agent having the highest SBS score, while the ARI scores had an insignificant difference between all groups (P > 0.05). Conclusion: The application of desensitizing agents after in-office bleaching increased the metal brackets' SBS but could not change the ARI scores.

show abstract

Microleakage of conventional, resin-modified, and nano-ionomer glass ionomer cement as primary teeth filling material

Cited by 2 publications

References 4 publications

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

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

Desensitizing agents’ post-bleaching effect on orthodontic bracket bond strength

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About