Abstract
The aim of this study was to assess the effect of different commercial liquid phases (Ketac, Riva, and Fuji IX) and the use of spherical pre-reacted glass (SPG) fillers on cement maturation, fluoride release, compressive (CS) and biaxial flexural strength (BFS) of experimental glass ionomer cements (GICs). The experimental GICs (Ketac_M, Riva_M, FujiIX_M) were prepared by mixing SPG fillers with commercial liquid phases using the powder to liquid mass ratio of 2.5:1. FTIR-ATR was used to assess the maturation of GICs. Diffusion coefficient of fluoride (DF) and cumulative fluoride release (CF) in deionized water was determined using the fluoride ion specific electrode (n=3). CS and BFS at 24 h were also tested (n=6). Commercial GICs were used as comparisons. Riva and Riva_M exhibited rapid polyacrylate salt formation. The highest DF and CF were observed with Riva_M (1.65x10-9 cm2/s) and Riva (77 ppm) respectively. Using SPG fillers enhanced DF of GICs on average from ~2.5x10-9 cm2/s to ~3.0x10-9 cm2/s but reduced CF of the materials on average from ~51 ppm to ~42 ppm. The CS and BFS of Ketac_M (144 and 22 MPa) and Fuji IX_M (123 and 30 MPa) were comparable to commercial materials. Using SPG with Riva significantly reduced CS and BFS from 123 MPa to 55 MPa and 42 MPa to 28 MPa respectively. The use of SPG fillers enhanced DF but reduced CF of GICs. Using SPG with Ketac or Fuji IX liquids provided comparable strength to the commercial materials.
Highlights
Dental amalgam has been widely used as the main restorative materials due to its low cost, ease of manipulation and placement, good durability, and long historical record of safety (1)
It is known that the liquid phase from different commercial Glass ionomer cements (GICs) may consist of varying molecular weight of polyacrylic acids and different level of water
FTIR Studies The initial setting reaction of GICs is acid-base neutralization reaction occurred between the glass fillers and polymeric acid solution
Summary
Dental amalgam has been widely used as the main restorative materials due to its low cost, ease of manipulation and placement, good durability, and long historical record of safety (1). Dental composites are considered suitable as alternative direct restorative materials, but they require complicated and highly sensitive placing techniques. The error occurred during composite placement could potentially lead to marginal leakage at tooth-composite interface (2). This may cause bacterial microleakage and secondary caries, which is the major reason of composite restoration failure (3). GICs exhibit lower mechanical properties compared to dental composites and dental amalgam. This may lead to the suboptimal performance of GICs restorations in high load-bearing areas. It has been shown that the common reason for the GICs restoration failure was material fracture or chipping (4). The reported survival rate at 10 year of GICs restorations was 37% whereas that of resin composites and dental amalgam were 43% and 51%
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
