Evaluation of physical and biological properties of conventional glass ionomer cements
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.5335/rfo.v25i3.13333Keywords:
glass ionomer cements; cytotoxicity; dental materials; in vitro techniques.Abstract
Objective: to evaluate the physical and biological properties of conventional glass ionomer cements (GICs).
Methodology: the following GICs were evaluated: Fuji IX (GC Europe, Belgium), Ketac Molar (3M ESPE, United
States), Maxxion R (FGM, Brazil) and Vitro Molar (Nova DFL, Brazil). Setting time, dimensional change,
radiopacity, water solubility and water absorption were evaluated for all materials. Compressive strength was
analyzed after intervals of 1h, 24h, 7 days and 28 days; and release of fluoride ions at 3 am, 24 am and 72
am. Cell viability was assessed after 24 and 48 hours with fibroblast cells. Statistical analysis was performed
using SigmaPlot 12 software (Systat Inc, San Jose, CA, USA), with a significance level set at α = 0.05. Result:
only the Fuji IX had an adjustment time within the range recommended by the Standard Specification
of ADA 96 (2012) of not exceeding 6 minutes. Vitro Molar and Maxxion R had radiopacity that was not in
accordance with the ADA 96 (2012) specification. Maxxion R and Vitro Molar showed a statistically similar
dimensional change. As for mechanical properties, Fuji IX was the only GIC that showed an increase in compressive
strength during the evaluation period of 28 days. Ketac Molar showed the highest cell viability, while
Maxxion R showed severe cytotoxicity and the highest cumulative fluoride release value. Conclusion: Fuji IX
and Ketac Molar showed the most appropriate physical and biological properties among the evaluated GICs.
Downloads
References
property investigation of contemporary glass ionomer and
resin-modified glass ionomer restorative materials. 2018;
23(3):1295-1308.
2. Croll TP, Nicholson JW. Glass ionomer cements in pediatric
dentistry: review of the literature. Pediatr Dent 2002;
24(5):423-9.
3. Virupaxi S, Pai R, Mandroli P. Retentive strength of luting
cements for stainless steel crowns: A systematic review. J Indian
Soc Pedod Prev Dent 2020; 38(1):2-7.
4. Faridi MA, Khabeer A, Haroon S. Flexural Strength of Glass
Carbomer Cement and Conventional Glass Ionomer Cement
Stored in Different Storage Media Over Time. Med Princ
Pract 2018; 27(4):372-7.
5. Amorim RG, Frencken JE, Raggio DP. Survival percentages
of atraumatic restorative treatment (ART) restorations and
sealants in posterior teeth: an updated systematic review
and meta-analysis. Clin Oral Investig 2018; 22(8):2703-25.
6. Spezzia S. Cimento de ionômero de vidro: revisão de literatura.
J Oral Investig 2018; 6(2):74.
7. Forsten L. Fluoride release from a glass ionomer cement.
Scand J Dent Res 1977; 85(6):503-4.
8. Forsten L. Fluoride release and uptake by glass-ionomers
and related materials and its clinical effect. Biomaterials
1998; 19(6):503-8.
9. Menezes-Silva R, Cabral RN, Pacotto RC. Mechanical and
optical properties of conventional restorative glass-ionomer
cements - a systematic review. J Appl Oral Sci 2019; 27.
10. Algera TJ, Kleverlaan CJ, Prahl-Andersen B, Feilzer AJ.
The influence of environmental conditions on the material
properties of setting glass-ionomer cements. Dent Mater
2006; 22(9):852-6.
11. Wren AW, Coughlan A, Hall MM, German MJ, Towler MR.
Comparison of a SiO2-CaO-ZnO-SrO glass polyalkenoate
cement to commercial dental materials: Ion release, biocompatibility
and antibacterial properties. J Mater Sci Mater
Med 2013; 24(9):2255-64.
12. Santos RL dos, Pithon MM, Leonardo JBP, Oberosler ELC,
Vaitsman DS, Ruellas AC de O. Orthodontic cements: Immediate
protection and fluoride release. Dent Press J Orthod
2012; 17(4):5-10.
13. Lima RBW e, Farias JFG de, Andrade AKM, Silva FDS da
CM e, Duarte RM. Water sorption and solubility of glass ionomer
cements indicated for atraumatic restorative treatment
considering the time and the pH of the storage solution. Rev
GauÌch Odontol 2018; 66(1):29-34.
14. Nicholson JW. Chemistry of glass-ionomer cements: a review.
Biomaterials 1998; 19(6):485-94.
15. Stona P, Bertella SM, Rockenbach MIB, Holderbaum RM,
Weber JBB. Radiopacities of Glass Ionomer Cements Measured
With Direct Digital Radiographic System. J Dent Child
2012; 79(2):59-62.
16. Walia R, Jasuja P, Verma K, Juneja S, Mathur A, Ahuja
L. A comparative evaluation of microleakage and compressive
strength of Ketac Molar, Giomer, Zirconomer, and Ceram-
x: an in vitro study. J Indian Soc Pedod Prev Dent 2016;
34(3):280.
17. Lohbauer U. Dental glass ionomer cements as permanent
filling materials? -Properties, limitations and future trends.
Materials (Basel) 2010; 3(1):76-96.
18. Bonifácio CC, Kleverlaan CJ, Raggio DP, Werner A, De Carvalho
RCR, Van Amerongen WE. Physical-mechanical properties of glass ionomer cements indicated for atraumatic restorative
treatment. Aust Dent J 2009; 54(3):233-7.
19. Olegário IC, Pacheco AL de B, de Araújo MP, Ladewig N de
M, Bonifácio CC, Imparato JCP, et al. Low-cost GICs reduce
survival rate in occlusal ART restorations in primary molars
after one year: A RCT. J Dent 2017; 57:45-50.
20. Pacheco AL de B, Olegário IC, Bonifácio CC, Calvo AFB,
Imparato JCP, Raggio DP. One year Survival Rate of Ketac
Molar versus Vitro Molar for Occlusoproximal ART Restorations:
a RCT. Braz Oral Res 2017; 31.
21. Bonifácio CC, Hesse D, Raggio DP, Bönecker M, Van Loveren
C, Van Amerongen WE. The effect of GIC-brand on the survival
rate of proximal-art restorations. Int J Paediatr Dent
2013; 23(4):251-8.
22. De Caluwé T, Vercruysse CWJ, Ladik I, Convents R, Declercq
H, Martens LC, et al. Addition of bioactive glass to
glass ionomer cements: Effect on the physico-chemical properties
and biocompatibility. Dent Mater 2017; 33(4):186-203.
23. Mota ACC da, Motta LJ, Santos EM, Guedes CC, Alfaya TA,
Bussadori SK. Cytotoxic effect of glass ionomer cements in
cell culture. Rev Assoc Paul Cir Dent 2014; 68(2):166-9.
24. Marczuk-Kolada G, Luczaj-Cepowicz E, Pawinska M,
Holownia A. Evaluation of the cytotoxicity of selected conventional
glass ionomer cements on human gingival fibroblasts.
Adv Clin Exp Med 2017; 26(7):1041-5.
25. Stanislawski L, Daniau X, Lautié A, Goldberg M. Factors responsible
for pulp cell cytotoxicity induced by resin-modified
glass ionomer cements. J Biomed Mater Res 1999; 48(3):277-88.
26. Oguro A, Cervenka J, Horii K â€i. Effect of Sodium Fluoride
on Growth of Human Diploid Cells in Culture. Pharmacol
Toxicol 1990; 67(5):411-4.
27. Chang YC, Chou MY. Cytotoxicity of fluoride on human pulp
cell cultures in vitro. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral
Radiol Endod 2001; 91(2):230-4.
28. Lewis J, Nix L, Schuster G, Lefebvre C, Knoernschild K,
Caughman G. Response of oral mucosal cells to glass ionomer
cements. Biomaterials 1996; 17(11):1115-20.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
This work is licensed under aCreative Commons Atribuição-NãoComercial-SemDerivações 4.0 Internacional.
