Protective effect of a nanofilled resin-based coating on wear resistance of glass ionomer cement restorative materials

Abstract

Background The effect of nanofilled resin-based coating on the wear resistance of glass ionomer cements (GICs) is still controversial. This study aims to compare the wear resistance of four encapsulated GICs including two conventional and two resin-modified, and to evaluate the effect of G-Coat Plus on the wear resistance of GICs. Methods A total of 80 disk-shaped specimens were prepared from two CGICs (riva self cure (SDI) and Equia Forte Fil (GC) and two RM- GICs (Ketac Nano (3 M/ESPE) and Fuji II LC (GC). The specimens of each material were divided into two groups (n = 10) based on the surface protection: no coating (NC), and coating with G-Coat Plus (GCP). All specimens were then placed in distilled water for 24 h at 37 °C. The specimens were subjected to thermocycling for 120,000 cycles using a chewing simulator. Wear resistance was measured using a specific formula. Data was analyzed using Kruskal–Wallis test. Results There was no significant difference in volume loss (mm3) between coated and uncoated groups for all materials (P > 0.05). Ketac Nano showed significantly lower volume loss (0.65 ± 0.12) compared to all other groups (P < 0.05) among uncoated specimen, and significantly lower than Fuji II LC (P = 0.035) and Equia Forte Fil (P = 0.040) among coated groups. However, no statically significant difference was observed between volume loss of coated Ketac Nano with that of riva self cure (P = 0.087). Conclusions Coating with GCP did not affect the wear depth of GICs, and Ketac Nano showed significantly lower volume loss regardless of coating.

Evaluation of compressive strength, surface microhardness, solubility and antimicrobial effect of glass ionomer dental cement reinforced with silver doped carbon nanotube fillers

“…Clinicians prefer to use GICs for long-term temporary restorations, the sandwich approach, luting agent, root caries, and permanent restorations in non-stress bearing areas, also cementation of orthodontic appliances and prosthodontic frameworks on the primary teeth [ 10 – 12 ]. Their properties are generally attractive for these applications and include high aesthetic properties, biocompatibility, fluoride-releasing and remineralization ability, chemical adhesion to the tooth surface, and matching the coefficient of thermal expansion of the natural tooth [ 13 , 14 ]. Despite these benefits, their main disadvantage is low early mechanical properties in sites subjected to high stresses, and low wear resistance, in addition to their high solubility, which may affect their survival rates when used in load-bearing regions [ 13 ].…”

“…Their properties are generally attractive for these applications and include high aesthetic properties, biocompatibility, fluoride-releasing and remineralization ability, chemical adhesion to the tooth surface, and matching the coefficient of thermal expansion of the natural tooth [ 13 , 14 ]. Despite these benefits, their main disadvantage is low early mechanical properties in sites subjected to high stresses, and low wear resistance, in addition to their high solubility, which may affect their survival rates when used in load-bearing regions [ 13 ]. Film thickness and the initial setting time of the dental cements are two significant physical properties of an important aspect of restorative dentistry [ 15 ].…”

Effect of various surface coating methods on surface roughness, micromorphological analysis and fluoride release from contemporary glass ionomer restorations

“…However, when the reaction occurs in dry conditions, the GIC is more likely to lose water, which compromises adhesion, alters the material’s dimensions, and causes internal cracks, thereby decreasing its strength. To combat this early susceptibility to moisture, the surface of GIC is coated with protective materials such as varnishes, adhesive systems, petroleum jelly, and nanofilled self-adhesive light-cured coating [ 12 ]. So, despite its limitations, this study attempted to explain the influence of different types of coats on surface roughness, fluoride release, and interference between restoration and tooth from modern resin-modified and standard glass ionomer restorations.…”

Effect of E-glass fibers addition on compressive strength, flexural strength, hardness, and solubility of glass ionomer based cement

“…GIC provides numerous benefits, including superior aesthetic qualities, fluoride release, chemical attachment to tooth structure, favorable thermal expansion, and biocompatibility [ 8 , 9 ]. These materials have the ability to release and recharge fluoride over extended periods of time [ 10 ].…”