Skip Navigation
Skip to contents

Restor Dent Endod : Restorative Dentistry & Endodontics

OPEN ACCESS

Search

Page Path
HOME > Search
5 "Glass ionomer cement"
Filter
Filter
Article category
Keywords
Publication year
Authors
Review Article
Comparative evaluation of the biological response of conventional and resin modified glass ionomer cement on human cells: a systematic review
Shishir Singh, Gaurav Kulkarni, R S Mohan Kumar, Romi Jain, Ameya M Lokhande, Teena K Sitlaney, Musharraf H F Ansari, Navin S Agarwal
Restor Dent Endod 2024;49(4):e41.   Published online November 1, 2024
DOI: https://doi.org/10.5395/rde.2024.49.e41
AbstractAbstract PDFPubReaderePub

This review aimed to evaluate and compare the biological response (biocompatibility and cytotoxicity) of resin modified glass ionomer cement (RMGIC) in contrast to conventional glass ionomer cement (GIC) on human cells. Articles reporting parallel and split-mouth clinical trials, randomized controlled trials, non-randomized controlled trials, prospective studies, and in vitro studies on human permanent teeth that assessed the biological response of GIC and RMGIC were included. The following electronic bibliographic databases were searched using the keywords: MEDLINE/PubMed, EBSCO, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Google Scholar. For the risk of bias MINORS tool and the modified scale of Animal Research: Reporting of In Vivo Experiments and Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials were used. Initial screening identified 552 studies, of which 9 articles met the inclusion criteria and were included in the study. Different parameters such as odontoblastic changes, inflammatory response, tertiary dentin formation, presence of microorganisms, morphological changes, cell viability, number, and metabolism were used to evaluate the biological response of conventional GIC and RMGICs. Conventional GIC shows lower cytotoxicity compared to RMGIC in vital pulp therapy procedures. Further, in vivo studies and long-term clinical trials are needed to compare these observations for pulp therapy using the 2 test materials.

Trial Registration

PROSPERO Identifier: CRD42023426021

  • 80 View
  • 4 Download
Close layer
Research Articles
The clinical success of ART restorations and Hall technique in primary molars: a randomized 18-month follow-up study
Esra Oz, Zuhal Kırzıoglu, Canan Kale
Restor Dent Endod 2023;48(2):e19.   Published online May 1, 2023
DOI: https://doi.org/10.5395/rde.2023.48.e19
AbstractAbstract PDFPubReaderePub
Objectives

The aim of the study was to evaluate the clinical and radiographic success of the Hall technique (HT) and atraumatic restorative treatment (ART) restorations using high-viscosity glass-ionomer cement for the management of occlusal carious lesions in primary molars.

Materials and Methods

This randomized clinical study observed 40 children (aged 5–6 years). For each child, one tooth was treated with HT and one with ART. The primary outcome measures for HT restorations were successful, minor, and major failure rates. Clinical evaluations of ART restorations were performed according to the modified United States Public Health Service criteria during 18-month follow-up. McNemar test was used for statistical analysis.

Results

Thirty of 40 (75%) participants returned for 18 months of follow-up. In the clinical evaluations of teeth that were treated with HT, the patients did not have complaints of pain or other symptoms, all crowns remained in the oral cavity, the gums were healthy, and the teeth were functional in all evaluations. At the end of the 18-month follow-up, the surface texture and marginal integrity criteria of ART restorations were recorded as 26.7% and 33.3%, respectively. In the radiographic evaluation of 30 patients treated with ART and HT, all restorations were considered successful.

Conclusions

The 18-month clinical and radiographic results after treatments applied to single-surface cavities in anxious children showed that both treatment methods were successful.

  • 25 View
  • 1 Download
  • 1 Web of Science
Close layer
Porosity and pore size distribution in high-viscosity and conventional glass ionomer cements: a micro-computed tomography study
Aline Borburema Neves, Laísa Inara Gracindo Lopes, Tamiris Gomes Bergstrom, Aline Saddock Sá da Silva, Ricardo Tadeu Lopes, Aline de Almeida Neves
Restor Dent Endod 2021;46(4):e57.   Published online October 29, 2021
DOI: https://doi.org/10.5395/rde.2021.46.e57
AbstractAbstract PDFPubReaderePub
Objectives

This study aimed to compare and evaluate the porosity and pore size distribution of high-viscosity glass ionomer cements (HVGICs) and conventional glass ionomer cements (GICs) using micro-computed tomography (micro-CT).

Materials and Methods

Forty cylindrical specimens (n = 10) were produced in standardized molds using HVGICs and conventional GICs (Ketac Molar Easymix, Vitro Molar, MaxxionR, and Riva Self-Cure). The specimens were prepared according to ISO 9917-1 standards, scanned in a high-energy micro-CT device, and reconstructed using specific parameters. After reconstruction, segmentation procedures, and image analysis, total porosity and pore size distribution were obtained for specimens in each group. After checking the normality of the data distribution, the Kruskal-Wallis test followed by the Student-Newman-Keuls test was used to detect differences in porosity among the experimental groups with a 5% significance level.

Results

Ketac Molar Easymix showed statistically significantly lower total porosity (0.15%) than MaxxionR (0.62%), Riva (0.42%), and Vitro Molar (0.57%). The pore size in all experimental cements was within the small-size range (< 0.01 mm3), but Vitro Molar showed statistically significantly more pores/defects with a larger size (> 0.01 mm3).

Conclusions

Major differences in porosity and pore size were identified among the evaluated GICs. Among these, the Ketac Molar Easymix HVGIC showed the lowest porosity and void size.

  • 22 View
  • 1 Download
  • 5 Web of Science
Close layer
Comparative assessment of antibacterial activity of different glass ionomer cements on cariogenic bacteria
Rahul Gaybarao Naik, Arun Suresh Dodamani, Mahesh Ravindra Khairnar, Harish Chaitram Jadhav, Manjiri Abhay Deshmukh
Restor Dent Endod 2016;41(4):278-282.   Published online September 20, 2016
DOI: https://doi.org/10.5395/rde.2016.41.4.278
AbstractAbstract PDFPubReaderePub
Objectives

Glass ionomer cements (GICs), which are biocompatible and adhesive to the tooth surface, are widely used nowadays for tooth restoration. They inhibit the demineralization and promote the remineralization of the tooth structure adjacent to the restoration, as well as interfere with bacterial growth. Hence, the present study was conducted to assess and compare the antimicrobial activity of three commercially available GICs against two cariogenic bacteria.

Materials and Methods

An agar plate diffusion test was used for evaluating the antimicrobial effect of three different GICs (Fuji IX, Ketac Molar, and d-tech) on Streptococcus mutans (S. mutans) and Lactobacillus acidophilus (L. acidophilus). Thirty plates were prepared and divided into two groups. The first group was inoculated with S. mutans, and the second group was inoculated with L. acidophilus. These plates were then incubated at 37℃ for 24 hours. Zones of bacterial growth inhibition that formed around each well were recorded in millimeters (mm).

Results

The zones of inhibition for Fuji IX, Ketac Molar, and d-tech on S. mutans were found to be 10.84 ± 0.22 mm, 10.23 ± 0.15 mm, and 15.65 ± 0.31 mm, respectively, whereas those for L. acidophilus were found to be 10.43 ± 0.12 mm, 10.16 ± 0.11 mm, and 15.57 ± 0.13 mm, respectively.

Conclusions

D-tech cement performed better in terms of the zone of bacterial inhibition against the two test bacteria, than the other two tested glass ionomers.

  • 19 View
  • 0 Download
Close layer
Do conventional glass ionomer cements release more fluoride than resin-modified glass ionomer cements?
Maria Fernanda Costa Cabral, Roberto Luiz de Menezes Martinho, Manoel Valcácio Guedes-Neto, Maria Augusta Bessa Rebelo, Danielson Guedes Pontes, Flávia Cohen-Carneiro
Restor Dent Endod 2015;40(3):209-215.   Published online May 26, 2015
DOI: https://doi.org/10.5395/rde.2015.40.3.209
AbstractAbstract PDFPubReaderePub
Objectives

The aim of this study was to evaluate the fluoride release of conventional glass ionomer cements (GICs) and resin-modified GICs.

Materials and Methods

The cements were grouped as follows: G1 (Vidrion R, SS White), G2 (Vitro Fil, DFL), G3 (Vitro Molar, DFL), G4 (Bioglass R, Biodinâmica), and G5 (Ketac Fil, 3M ESPE), as conventional GICs, and G6 (Vitremer, 3M ESPE), G7 (Vitro Fil LC, DFL), and G8 (Resiglass, Biodinâmica) as resin-modified GICs. Six specimens (8.60 mm in diameter; 1.65 mm in thickness) of each material were prepared using a stainless steel mold. The specimens were immersed in a demineralizing solution (pH 4.3) for 6 hr and a remineralizing solution (pH 7.0) for 18 hr a day. The fluoride ions were measured for 15 days. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Tukey's test with 5% significance were applied.

Results

The highest amounts of fluoride release were found during the first 24 hr for all cements, decreasing abruptly on day 2, and reaching gradually decreasing levels on day 7. Based on these results, the decreasing scale of fluoride release was as follows: G2 > G3 > G8 = G4 = G7 > G6 = G1 > G5 (p < 0.05).

Conclusions

There were wide variations among the materials in terms of the cumulative amount of fluoride ion released, and the amount of fluoride release could not be attributed to the category of cement, that is, conventional GICs or resin-modified GICs.

  • 19 View
  • 0 Download
Close layer

Restor Dent Endod : Restorative Dentistry & Endodontics
Close layer
TOP