Glass Ionomer Cement In Class Research Articles

Comparison of Bulk Polymeric Resin Composite and Hybrid Glass Ionomer Cement in Adhesive Class I Dental Restorations: A 3D Finite Element Analysis.

This study aimed to investigate the mechanical behavior of resin composites and hybrid glass ionomer cement in class I adhesive dental restorations under loading and shrinkage conditions. Three CAD models of a mandibular first molar with class I cavities were created and restored with different techniques: a bi-layer of Equia Forte HT with Filtek One Bulk Fill Restorative composite (model A), a single layer of adhesive and Filtek One Bulk Fill Restorative (model B), and a single layer of Equia forte HT (model C). Each model was exported to computer-aided engineering software, and 3D finite element models were created. Models A and B exhibited a similar pattern of stress distribution along the enamel-restoration interface, with stress peaks of 12.5 MPa and 14 MPa observed in the enamel tissue. The sound tooth, B, and C models showed a similar trend along the interface between dentine and restoration. A stress peak of about 0.5 MPa was detected in the enamel of both the sound tooth and B models. Model C showed a reduced stress peak of about 1.2 MPa. A significant stress reduction in 4 mm deep class I cavities in lower molars was observed in models where non-shrinking dental filling materials, like the hybrid glass ionomer cement used in model C, were applied. Stress reduction was also achieved in model A, which employed a bi-layer technique with a shrinking polymeric filling material (bulk resin composite). Model C's performance closely resembled that of a sound tooth.

A Comparative Evaluation of Postoperative Sensitivity Between Cention-N and Resin-Modified Glass Ionomer Cement in Class V Cavity: An In Vivo Study.

Aim This research aimed to assess and compare the postoperative sensitivity in class V cavity when restored with Cention-N and resin-modified glass ionomer cement (RMGIC). This study usedthe Schiff scale to assess sensitivity in the class V cavity. Materials and methods This was an in vivo study performed in the Department of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, Sharad Pawar Dental College and Hospital, Sawangi Meghe, Maharashtra. Patients included in this study were randomly selected from regular outpatient departments diagnosed with class V cavities and referred for restorative treatment. These patients were segregated into Group A and Group B. Demographic information, detailed history of any medical condition, dental history, any allergy related to resins, and another group of drugs were recorded. The in vivo study involved 36 patients, 18 in each group, who presented at Sharad Pawar Dental College and Hospital. Inform consent was taken from all patients. The subjects' responses were evaluated using a Schiff analog scale to assess postoperative sensitivity to an air blast stimulus. Results The study included all 36 patients aged between 18 and 40 years. All 36 patients were segregated into two distinct groups. Two groups of 18 patients in each group were restored with Cention-N and RMGIC in groups A and B, respectively. It was determined that RMGIC exhibits a relatively higher incidence of postoperative sensitivity than Cention-N. It was determined that the difference was statistically relevant. Conclusion Considering the limitations of this study, it can be concluded that RMGIC shows more postoperative sensitivity than other groups on the first, second, and seventh days. Thus, it is concluded that Cention-N can be a superior alternative to RMGIC.

Evaluation of Shear Bond Strength between Resin Composites and Conventional Glass Ionomer Cement in Class II Restorative Technique-An In Vitro Study.

The success of dental restorations depends mainly on the ability to bond to other filling materials and tooth substances, in order to resist the multitude of forces acting on the bond within the oral cavity. Although the shortcomings of composite resins have been significantly reduced over the past three decades, microleakage due to shrinkage under masticatory loads is unavoidable. In order to overcome such problems, two materials laminated with matched properties can be used to achieve optimum results. The sandwich technique is an approach in which dentine is replaced by glass ionomer cement (GIC), and enamel is replaced by composite resin. In the past, numerous materials have been proposed with adequate properties to be used in this manner, but the results are conflicting in terms of bonding to the various forms of GIC, and the appearance of microcracks or gap formation during functional loading. This study aimed to evaluate the shear bond strength (SBS) and mode of failure between the following core materials: composite resins (CR) (Methacrylate Z350™, Ceram X™, and Spectrum™) with a base material of glass ionomer cement (GIC, Ketac Molar™). Eight samples were made with the help of polytetrafluoroethylene sheets (TEFLON, Wilmington, DE, USA). Each sheet consisted of holes which were 4 mm in diameter and 2 mm in thickness. The combination of materials was sandwiched. The samples were stored in distilled water and then placed in an incubator for 24 h in order to ensure complete polymerization. The samples were thermocycled for 500 cycles between 5–55 °C/ 30 s. Following thermocycling, SBS testing was performed using a universal testing machine. Additionally, scanning electron microscopy (SEM) was performed on representative samples for the bond failure analysis between GIC and the composite resins. The Ceram-X™ nanocomposite showed significantly higher bond strength than Methacrylate Z350™ or Spectrum™ (p = 0.002). The Methacrylate Z350™ and the Spectrum™ composite specimens demonstrated a similar SBS (p = 0.281). The SBS of the Ceram X™ to GIC was the highest compared to Methacrylate Z350™ and Spectrum™. Therefore Ceram X™ may produce a better bond with GIC, and may protect teeth against recurrent caries and failure of the restoration. Methacrylate Z350™ is comparable to Spectrum™ CR and can be used as an alternative. A combination of adhesive and mixed failure was observed in Methacrylate Z350™ CR and GIC, while adhesive failure was predominantly found in both Ceram X™ and Spectrum™ with GIC restorations.

Effect of incorporation of nano-hydroxyapatite particles on the clinical performance of conventional and resin-modified glass ionomer cement in class V cavities: split-mouth, randomized controlled trial

BackgroundThe aim of this study was to compare the clinical performance of Nano-hydroxyapatite-modified conventional glass ionomer cement (NHA-GIC) and Nano-hydroxyapatite-modified resin-modified glass ionomer cement (NHA-RMGIC) with conventional glass ionomer (CGIC) and resin-modified glass ionomer (RMGIC) in the treatment of caries class V cavities. Sixty patients with at least two cervical caries lesions participated in this study. A total of 120 class V cavities were prepared and then restored using different restorative materials. Restorations were clinically evaluated according to modified United States Public Health Service criteria at baseline and after 3, 6 and 9 months.ResultsThere was no statistically significant difference in the clinical performance of the different restorative materials at any of the follow-up periods. However, throughout the study period there was a statistically significant change in the color match, surface texture and marginal integrity in NHA-GIC. A statistically significant change in the surface texture and marginal integrity was found in GIC. On the other hand, there was only a statistically significant change in surface texture in NHA-RMGIC.ConclusionsAll tested restorative materials, control (CGIC and RMGIC) as well as experimental (NHA-GIC and NHA-RMGIC), exhibited comparable clinical performance after 9 months follow-up.

Three-year performance of a nano-filled resin-modified glass ionomer cementin class II primary molar restorations.

To compare the clinical failure rate of two resin-modified glass ionomer cements (RMGICs) used for Class II primary molar restorations over a 3-year period. Healthy, cooperative children aged 4-8years with carious, asymptomatic primary molars requiring class II restorations received either nano-filled (Ketac Nano, 3M ESPE) or regular (Vitremer, 3M ESPE) RMGIC restorations. These were blindly assessed semiannually for 3years using the modified USPHS criteria with all-cause failure as primary outcome and failure for each criterion as secondary outcome. Data was analysed with Fisher's exact tests and survival analysis with robust standard errors at 5%. Outcome assessment included 159 teeth at 12months, 141 teeth at 24months, and 98 teeth at 36months. No difference in all-cause failure was found between regular and nano-filled RMGIC at 12 (8.6% versus 14.1%), 24 (9.0% versus 14.9%) or 36months (7.4% versus 20.5%) (P > 0.05). The nano-filled RMGIC retained better its anatomical form and the regular RMGIC likewise its marginal integrity (P < 0.05), but only in the acceptable range (Alpha-Bravo). Overall, survival analysis found no significant difference for all-cause failure [hazard ratio (HR) 0.58; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.25-1.31; P = 0.19] or any secondary outcomes other than contact point integrity. Finally, subgroup analysis by jaw indicated that the regular RMGIC performed better than the nano-filled RMGIC for mandibular molars (HR 0.36; 95% CI 0.13-0.96; P = 0.04), but further data are needed. Nano-filled RMGIC showed less occlusal wear but more mild marginal defects than regular RMGIC, but these findings were of limited clinical significance and both materials performed favourably for 3years.

A 3-year controlled randomized clinical study on the performance of two glass-ionomer cements in Class II cavities of permanent teeth.

To compare the clinical performance of two glass-ionomer cements in combination with two light-cured coatings in Class II cavities. In total, 43 Equia Fil/Equia Coat and 42 Fuji IX GP Fast/Fuji Coat LC restorations were placed, in 34 patients. Only Class II cavities with two- or three-surface restorations were included. The clinical performance was evaluated at baseline, after 1, 2, and 3 years using the FDI criteria. For the statistical analysis, Fisher exact test, Wilcoxon signed-rank test and Mann-Whitney U test were applied. The success and survival of the restorations were calculated with the Kaplan-Meier method and a log-rank test was used to detect significant differences between the tested materials. At the 3-year recall, no significant differences could be detected between the two glass-ionomer cements for any of the evaluated criteria (Mann-Whitney U test, P > .05). When comparing the baseline with the recall data at 3 years for each material separately, significant changes could be observed in both materials for the criteria "surface luster," "fracture of material and retention," and "approximal anatomical form" (Wilcoxon signed-rank test, P < .05). Additionally, the Equia Fil restorations showed a notable change for the criteria "marginal adaptation" (Wilcoxon signed-rank test, P = .039). At the 3-year follow up, the Equia Fil and the Fuji IX GP Fast restorations exhibited an overall survival rate of 86.21% and 84.0%, respectively. The two glass-ionomer cements tested performed similarly in Class II cavities in adult patients, with a moderate to high failure rate after 3 years.

Corrigendum: A 3-year controlled randomized clinical study on the performance of two glass-ionomer cements in Class II cavities of permanent teeth.

To compare the clinical performance of two glass-ionomer cements in combination with two light-cured coatings in Class II cavities. In total, 43 Equia Fil/Equia Coat and 42 Fuji IX GP Fast/Fuji Coat LC restorations were placed, in 34 patients. Only Class II cavities with two- or three-surface restorations were included. The clinical performance was evaluated at baseline, after 1, 2, and 3 years using the FDI criteria. For the statistical analysis, Fisher exact test, Wilcoxon signed-rank test and Mann-Whitney U test were applied. The success and survival of the restorations were calculated with the Kaplan-Meier method and a log-rank test was used to detect significant differences between the tested materials. At the 3-year recall, no significant differences could be detected between the two glass-ionomer cements for any of the evaluated criteria (Mann-Whitney U test, P > .05). When comparing the baseline with the recall data at 3 years for each material separately, significant changes could be observed in both materials for the criteria "surface luster," "fracture of material and retention," and "approximal anatomical form" (Wilcoxon signed-rank test, P < .05). Additionally, the Equia Fil restorations showed a notable change for the criteria "marginal adaptation" (Wilcoxon signed-rank test, P = .039). At the 3-year follow up, the Equia Fil and the Fuji IX GP Fast restorations exhibited an overall survival rate of 89.3% and 88.0%, respectively. Three fillings in each group failed. The two glass-ionomer cements tested performed similarly in Class II cavities in adult patients, with a moderate failure rate after 3 years. (Original article published in Quintessence Int 2019;50:592-602; doi: 10.3290/j.qi.a42692).

EVALUATION OF IMPACT OF LINING APPLICATION TECHNIQUES ON MARGINAL MICROLEAKAGE IN RESIN-MODIFIED GLASS IONOMER CEMENT IN CLASS II COMPOSITE RESTORATIONS: AN IN VITRO STUDY

Evaluation of impact of lining application techniques on marginal microleakage in resin-modified glass ionomer cement in class II composite restorations: An in vitro study, JofIMAB 2019 Jan-Mar;25(1):2426-2432

Retrospective Clinical Evaluation of A Polyacid-Modified Resin Composite And Two Glass Ionomer Cements in Class II Cavities of Primary Teeth: Eighteen-Month Results

Retrospective Clinical Evaluation of A Polyacid-Modified Resin Composite And Two Glass Ionomer Cements in Class II Cavities of Primary Teeth: Eighteen-Month Results

Comparative evaluation of microleakage between bulk esthetic materials versus resin-modified glass ionomer to restore Class II cavities in primary molars

The aim of the study was to assess the microleakage of one high-viscosity conventional glass ionomer cement (GIC) and a bulk-fill composite resin, in comparison to a resin-modified GIC in Class II restorations in primary molars. Standardized Class II slot cavity preparations were prepared in exfoliating primary molars. Teeth were restored using one of the three materials tested (n = 10): SonicFill bulk-fill composite resin (SF), EQUIA Fil conventional reinforced GIC (EQF), and Vitremer resin-reinforced GIC (VT). The restorations were then subjected to thermocycling procedure (×2000 5°C-55°C 10 s/min) and soaked in 1% neutralized fuchsin solution (pH: 7.4) for 24 h at 37°C. Teeth were sectioned longitudinally in a mesiodistal direction under continuous cooling into three slabs of 1 mm thickness and studied under a stereomicroscope for dye penetration. Data were evaluated by one-way analysis of variance and the Tukey's multiple comparison test employing 95% (α = 0.05). EQF and SF showed significantly lower microleakage scores and percentage of dye penetration (%RL) when compared to VT resin-reinforced GIC (P < 0.001). SF and EQF produced the minimum microleakage when compared to VT in Class II restorations on primary molars. Fewer application procedures and reduction in treatment time in SF and EQF systems proved advantageous in pediatric dentistry.

Perbedaan Kebocoran Tepi antara GIC Konvensional dan Resin Modified GIC pada Restorasi Kelas V (Difference on Microleakage of Conventional GIC and Resin Modified GIC in Class V Restoration)

Background. Microleakage is one of the challenging concerns in direct filling restorations. Restoration material should have good adaptation between the restoration and the cavity walls to seal the cavity in a good way. Glass ionomer cement (GIC) is one of restoration material which indicated for class V cavity. GIC has a good adherence to the cavity wall but fragile to liquid contamination during the setting time. Resin modified glass ionomer cement (RMGIC) is a hybrid glass ionomer cement with the addition of hidroxyethylmethacrylate (HEMA) in the liquid to increase the properties and endurance to liquid contamination. Aim. The aim of this study was to investigate the difference on microleakage of conventional GIC and resin modified GIC in class V restoration. Material and methods. Class V cavities (depth: 2 mm) were prepared on the cervical surface of 32 human first permanent premolars. Teeth were classified into three groups. Group 1: conventional GIC + varnish. Group 2:RMGIC + varnish. All cavities were restored, then stored in artificial saliva at 37ºC for 24 hours. The teeth were immersed in a 1% methylene blue dye solution for 24 hours, and then rinsed in running water, dried, and sectioned longitudinally. The section were assessed for microleakage of dye penetration by two independent evaluators using a digital microscope. Data were collected and statistically analyzed. Results. RMGIC showed no significant difference with conventional GIC. However, there is a slight difference, RMGIC has a slight lower microleakage than conventional GIC. Conclusion. RMGIC showed only slight lower microleakage than conventional GIC, but not significant.

Evaluation of cavity wall adaptation of bulk esthetic materials to restore class II cavities in primary molars.

The purpose of the study was to assess the cavity wall adaptation and gap formation of a bulk fill composite resin and reinforced conventional glass ionomer cement and a resin-modified glass ionomer cement in class II restorations on primary molars. Standardized class II slot cavity preparations were prepared in exfoliating primary molars. Teeth were restored with one of the three tested materials (n=10): SonicFill bulk fill composite resin (SF), EQUIA Fil conventional reinforced glass ionomer cement (EQF), and Vitremer resin-reinforced glass ionomer cement (VT). Cavity wall adaptation of the restorations was investigated by computerized X-ray micro-tomography and the percentage void volume fraction (%VVF) was calculated. Same specimens were sectioned and the interfaces were evaluated by reflection optical microscopy to measure the percentage linear length (%LD) of the interfacial gaps. Samples were further evaluated by environmental scanning electron microscopy (ESEM). EQF and SF showed significantly lower %VVF and %LD values than VT (p<0.05). This was in accordance with ESEM findings where VT illustrated extended interfacial gaps. SF and EQF showed better cavity wall adaptation than VT in class II restorations on primary molars. High-strength conventional glass ionomer cement (GIC EQF) and bulk fill composite SF requiring fewer application steps and reduced operating time than the traditional composite resin materials showed good cavity wall adaptation. Short operating time and good cavity wall adaptation are advantages of the materials in restorative and pediatric dentistry, especially while working on children with limited attention span.

Comparative Evaluation of Microleakage Between Nano-Ionomer, Giomer and Resin Modified Glass Ionomer Cement in Class V Cavities- CLSM Study.

Marginal integrity of adhesive restorative materials provides better sealing ability for enamel and dentin and plays an important role in success of restoration in Class V cavities. Restorative material with good marginal adaptation improves the longevity of restorations. Aim of this study was to evaluate microleakage in Class V cavities which were restored with Resin Modified Glass Ionomer Cement (RMGIC), Giomer and Nano-Ionomer. This in-vitro study was performed on 60 human maxillary and mandibular premolars which were extracted for orthodontic reasons. A standard wedge shaped defect was prepared on the buccal surfaces of teeth with the gingival margin placed near Cemento Enamel Junction (CEJ). Teeth were divided into three groups of 20 each and restored with RMGIC, Giomer and Nano-Ionomer and were subjected to thermocycling. Teeth were then immersed in 0.5% Rhodamine B dye for 48 hours. They were sectioned longitudinally from the middle of cavity into mesial and distal parts. The sections were observed under Confocal Laser Scanning Microscope (CLSM) to evaluate microleakage. Depth of dye penetration was measured in millimeters. The data was analysed using the Kruskal Wallis test. Pair wise comparison was done with Mann Whitney U Test. A p-value<0.05 is taken as statistically significant. Nano-Ionomer showed less microleakage which was statistically significant when compared to Giomer (p=0.0050). Statistically no significant difference was found between Nano Ionomer and RMGIC (p=0.3550). There was statistically significant difference between RMGIC and Giomer (p=0.0450). Nano-Ionomer and RMGIC showed significantly less leakage and better adaptation than Giomer and there was no statistically significant difference between Nano-Ionomer and RMGIC.

Comparative study of microleakage of three different flowable restorative materials and light-cure glass ionomer cement in class V cavities: An in-vitro study

In vitro study was done to compare the sealing ability of 3 Flowable restorative materials (Flowable composite, Flowable compomer, Flowable ownocer) and a Light cure Glass-ionomer cement in class V cavities at occlusal and gingival margin after 24 hrs of dye immersion. Standardized class V cavities were prepared on the buccal aspect of forty extracted premolars. These 40 teeth were divided into 4 main groups. Group A (Flowable ormocer), Group B (Flowable compomer), Group C (Flowable composite) and Group D (Light cure Glass-ionomer cernent). The samples were then sectioned bucco-lingually through the centre of restoration and examined under stereomicroscope for dye penetration. Flowable ormocer showed least microleakage of all the material at occlusal and gingival margin after 24 hrs of dye immersion. Light cure Glass-ionomer cement showed the maximum microleakage and least sealing ability of all the materials. Flowable ormocer with best sealing ability can be advocated for class V situations.

Clinical evaluation of giomer- and resin-modified glass ionomer cement in class V noncarious cervical lesions: An in vivo study.

Objectives:To evaluate and compare the clinical performance of Giomer (Beautifil II) and RMGIC (Fuji II LC) in noncarious cervical lesions.Materials and Methods:Thirty-two subjects with one or two pairs of noncarious cervical lesions were included in the study. Each pair of lesion was restored with either giomer or RMGIC assigned randomly. Clinical evaluation of restorations was done using USPHS criteria. Data was formulated in a predesigned format and subjected to statistical analysis using the chi square test.Results:Statistically significant difference was found between RMGIC and Giomer with respect to surface roughness with P value <0.001.Conclusion:Giomer showed superior surface finish compared to RMGIC. Both Giomer and RMGIC showed equal retention ability.