Current aspects and prospects of glass ionomer cements for clinical dentistry

Park, Eun Young; Kang, Sohee

doi:10.12701/yujm.2020.00374

Cited by 32 publications

(25 citation statements)

References 74 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The mechanical properties such as tensile strength and compressive strength of RMGIC is equal to those of bond strength GIC. The bonding intensity of RMGIC depends on the ionic bond between hydroxyapatite (HA) of the tooth and restorative material [13]. Ionic bonding between tooth and material takes place by the acid-base reaction of calcium ions from HA present on the surface of the tooth and carboxyl ion from polyacids present in RMGIC components.…”

Section: ⅳ Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effect of Aluminum Chloride Hemostatic Agent on Bonding Strength of RMGIC in Primary Tooth

Woo¹,

Shin²,

Lee³

et al. 2021

THE JOURNAL OF THE KOREAN ACADEMY OF PEDTATRIC DENTISTRY

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effect of a hemostatic agent containing aluminum chloride on the shear bond strength of resin-modified glass ionomer cement (RMGIC) to the dentin of primary teeth. Thirty-six extracted non-carious human primary teeth were collected in this study. Dentin surfaces were cut and polished. The specimens were randomly divided into 4 groups; group I: RMGIC without conditioning; group II: polyacrylic acid (PAA), RMGIC; group III: aluminum chloride, RMGIC; group IV: aluminum chloride, PAA, RMGIC. All teeth were thermocycled between 5.0℃ and 55.0℃ for 5000 cycles. Fifteen specimens from each group were subjected to shear bond strength test and 3 specimens from each group were inspected using scanning electron microscopy (SEM) and energy dispersive X-ray spectroscopy. The mean shear bond strength of each group was as follows: 4.04 ± 0.88 MPa in group I, 8.29 ± 1.40 MPa in group II, 1.39 ± 0.47 MPa in group III, 6.24 ± 2.76 MPa in group IV. There were significant differences among all groups (<i>p</i> < 0.001). SEM image of the dentinal tubules were partially exposed in group III and group IV. Fully exposed dentinal tubules were found in group II. In conclusion, aluminum chloride decreased the shear bond strength of RMGIC to dentin, regardless of PAA conditioning.

show abstract

Section: ⅳ Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effect of Aluminum Chloride Hemostatic Agent on Bonding Strength of RMGIC in Primary Tooth

Woo¹,

Shin²,

Lee³

et al. 2021

THE JOURNAL OF THE KOREAN ACADEMY OF PEDTATRIC DENTISTRY

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Glass ionomers (GIs) are one of the restorative materials used in dental practice (Mickenautsch et al, 2009). Due to their inherent cariostatic property, biocompatibility, chemical bonding to the tooth structure, the ability to adhere to the moist dental structure, and bulk application, GI cements are suitable for use in deep cavities and on the root surfaces, especially in patients at high risk of caries (Park & Kang, 2020; Sonarkar & Purba, 2015). Resin‐modified GI (RMGI) cements with improved physical properties were introduced to overcome the limitations of the conventional GI cements, such as their low bond strength, fragility, and low wear resistance (Mickenautsch et al, 2009).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Marginal microleakage and modified microtensile bond strength of Activa Bioactive, in comparison with conventional restorative materials

Tohidkhah

Kermanshah

Ahmadi

et al. 2022

Clinical & Exp Dental Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives This study aimed to assess the enamel and dentin marginal microleakage and dentin microtensile bond strength (μTBS) of ACTIVA BioACTIVE Restorative with and without a bonding agent compared with conventional restorative materials. Material and methods For enamel and dentin microleakage, Class II boxes were prepared in the mesial (1 mm under the cementoenamel junction) and distal (1 mm above the cementoenamel junction) surfaces of 90 extracted human third molars. The teeth were randomly divided into five groups (n = 18): Group Z (G‐Premio Bond + Filtek Z250 XT), Group X (G‐Premio Bond + X‐tra fil bulk‐fill), Group AA (G‐Premio Bond + Activa Bioactive restorative), Group A (Activa Bioactive restorative), and Group G (dentin conditioner + Fuji II LC Improve). The teeth were thermocycled, and their microleakage was quantified using the dye penetration test under a stereomicroscope. For dentin μTBS measurement, 12 specimens were fabricated in metal molds (1 × 1 × 12 mm³) for each group mentioned above, and a universal testing machine measured their μTBS. Data were analyzed using one‐way analysis of variance (ANOVA), the Kruskal–Wallis test, and multiple comparisons tests. Results Significant differences were noted among the groups in marginal microleakage and μTBS (p < .001). The highest mean microleakage scores at the enamel and dentin margins were noted in Group A, which had significant differences with other groups (p < .001). The highest μTBS was found in Group X, with significant differences with Group G and Group A (p < .05). The lowest µTBS was noted in Group A, with significant differences with Groups X, Group AA, and Group Z (p < .001). Conclusions Activa Bioactive without a bonding agent showed significantly lower µTBS to dentin, and higher microleakage at the enamel and dentin margins. Application of adhesive resin with Activa Bioactive provided a dentine bond strength and marginal seal comparable to other restorative materials.

show abstract

“…Numerous attempts have been made in the past to improve the properties of conventional GICs [ 21 , 22 ]. For example, they have been reinforced with inorganic nanoparticles such as alumina or hydroxyapatite crystals to improve their mechanical properties and to avoid the downsides of adding a resin, which would compromise the benefits of a biocompatible restorative material [ 23 , 24 , 25 ]. In this study, DeltaFil (DMG, Hamburg, Germany), an innovative conventional GIC with dispersed polymeric micelles was used to prevent crack propagation, thus aiming to improve the fracture toughness compared to well-established conventional GICs.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluation of a Method to Determine Wear Resistance of Class I Tooth Restorations during Cyclic Loading

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The aim of this study was the development of a test regime to determine the wear resistance and predict the clinical performance of conventional glass ionomer cement (GIC) restorations in Class I tooth cavities. Cavities were prepared in excised human teeth and restored using three conventional glass ionomer restorative materials: DeltaFil, Fuji IX GP and Ketac Universal. The restored teeth were mechanically and thermally stressed using a chewing simulator with a maximum number of 1,200,000 load cycles. Besides determining the number of cycles achieved, the abrasion volume after termination of the chewing simulation was calculated using µCT images. All teeth restored with DeltaFil reached 1,200,000 cycles without any restoration failure. Only 37.5% of the restorations each with Ketac Universal and Fuji IX GP were able to achieve the maximum cycle number. A significant lower abrasion volume for restorations with DeltaFil compared to Ketac Universal (p = 0.0099) and Fuji IX GP (p = 0.0005) was found. Laboratory chewing simulations are a useful tool to study basic wear mechanisms in a controlled setting with in-vivo related parameters. DeltaFil shows an improved wear resistance compared to other conventional GICs, indicating the high potential of this material for long-lasting Class I restorations.

show abstract

Current aspects and prospects of glass ionomer cements for clinical dentistry

Cited by 32 publications

References 74 publications

Effect of Aluminum Chloride Hemostatic Agent on Bonding Strength of RMGIC in Primary Tooth

Effect of Aluminum Chloride Hemostatic Agent on Bonding Strength of RMGIC in Primary Tooth

Marginal microleakage and modified microtensile bond strength of Activa Bioactive, in comparison with conventional restorative materials

Evaluation of a Method to Determine Wear Resistance of Class I Tooth Restorations during Cyclic Loading

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About