Restorative Dentistry & Endodontics

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

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

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by

The conventional glass ionomers – A forgotten paradigm
Shishir Singh
Journal of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics.2024; 27(12): 1201. CrossRef

674 View
58 Download
1 Crossref

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

Abstract PDF PubReader ePub

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.

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by

Success rate of Hall Technique for restoring carious primary molars - systematic review and meta-analysis
Tamara Kerber Tedesco, Nicola Patricia Innes, Claudia Lopez Gallegos, Gabriela Seabra Silva, Thais Gimenez, Mariana Minatel Braga, Mariana Pinheiro Araujo, Jayakumar Jayaraman, Waraf Al-yaseen, Daniela Prócida Raggio
Evidence-Based Dentistry.2025; 26(1): 65. CrossRef

527 View
18 Download
2 Web of Science
1 Crossref

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

Abstract PDF PubReader ePub

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.

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by

Effect of crown seating methods on the remnant cement in the subgingival region of a cement-retained implant crown
Fanghui Ji, Ji Suk Shim, Jeongyol Lee, Hwiseong Oh, Jae Jun Ryu
Scientific Reports.2024;[Epub] CrossRef
Enhancing Wear Resistance in Glass Ionomer Cement through Green-mediated Chitosan-, Titanium-, Zirconium-, and Hydroxyapatite-based Nanocomposites: An Analysis before and after Chewing Simulator Endurance
Jessy Paulraj, Rajeshkumar Shanmugam, Subhabrata Maiti, Srinavasa Surya Sitaram
International Journal of Clinical Pediatric Dentistry.2024; 17(11): 1229. CrossRef
The effect of mesoporous silica doped with silver nanoparticles on glass ionomer cements; physiochemical, mechanical and ion release analysis
Syed Saad Bin Qasim, Ali Bmuajdad
BMC Oral Health.2024;[Epub] CrossRef
Hyperbaric Pressure Effect on Dental Luting Cements
Secil OZKAN ATA, Nazım ATA, Rıfat UGURLUTAN
Journal of Basic and Clinical Health Sciences.2023; 7(1): 464. CrossRef
In Vitro Comparison of Differences in Setting Time of Premixed Calcium Silicate-Based Mineral Trioxide Aggregate According to Moisture Content of Gypsum
Hyun-Jin Kim, Jun-Seok Lee, Dong-Hoon Gwak, Yong-Seok Ko, Chun-Il Lim, Seung-Youl Lee
Materials.2023; 17(1): 35. CrossRef
Adhesion and Surface Roughness of Apatite-Containing Carbomer and Improved Ionically Bioactive Resin Compared to Glass Ionomers
Handan Yıldırım Işık, Aylin Çilingir
Journal of Functional Biomaterials.2023; 14(7): 367. CrossRef
An influence of finishing procedures and protective coating on the ultrastructure of conventional and hybrid glass ionomer cement restorations
Antonije Stankovic, Jelena Popovic, Marija Nikolic, Aleksandar Mitic, Nenad Stosic, Radomir Barac, Aleksandra Milovanovic
Stomatoloski glasnik Srbije.2023; 70(3): 138. CrossRef
Effect of aging on mechanical and antibacterial properties of fluorinated graphene reinforced glass ionomer: In vitro study
Suzan Khaled Arafa, Dalia Ibrahim Sherief, Mohamed Salah Nassif
Journal of the Mechanical Behavior of Biomedical Materials.2023; 142: 105803. CrossRef

267 View
6 Download
5 Web of Science
8 Crossref

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

Abstract PDF PubReader ePub

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.

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by

Modifications of polyalkenoic acid and its effect on glass ionomer cement
Sreejith Sasidharan Lathikumari, Manju Saraswathy
Materials Advances.2024; 5(7): 2719. CrossRef
Evaluation of the Clinical Impact and In Vitro Antibacterial Activities of Two Bioactive Restoratives against S. mutans ATCC 25175 in Class II Carious Restorations
YA Maher, MT Rajeh, FA Hamooda, GO Zerain, RM Habis, RH Sulaimani, ST Albar, FMH Ali, NA Abdelaleem
Nigerian Journal of Clinical Practice.2023; 26(4): 404. CrossRef
Effect of conditioning and 3-year aging on the bond strength and interfacial morphology of glass-ionomer cement bonded to dentin
Ahmed Zubaer, Rime Shamme Akter, Al Azad Salahuddin, Rahman Mir Ayubur, Sano Hidehiko, Hoshika Shuhei
Journal of Dental Sciences.2022;[Epub] CrossRef
Comparison and Advanced Antimicrobial Strategies of Silver and Copper Nanodrug-Loaded Glass Ionomer Cement against Dental Caries Microbes
Amal Adnan Ashour, Mohammed Fareed Felemban, Nayef H. Felemban, Enas T. Enan, Sakeenabi Basha, Mohamed M. Hassan, Sanaa M. F. Gad El-Rab
Antibiotics.2022; 11(6): 756. CrossRef
Antibacterial Activity and Biofilm Inhibition of New-Generation Hybrid/Fluoride-Releasing Restorative Materials
Sevil Gurgan, Uzay Koc Vural, Cansu Atalay, Herve Tassery, Ivana Miletic, Suna Sibel Gurpinar
Applied Sciences.2022; 12(5): 2434. CrossRef
Comparative evaluation of long-term fluoride release and antibacterial activity of an alkasite, nanoionomer, and glass ionomer restorative material – An in vitro study
RV Aparajitha, PSenthamil Selvan, AShafie Ahamed, S Bhavani, V Nagarajan
Journal of Conservative Dentistry.2021; 24(5): 485. CrossRef
Dental Restorative Materials for Elderly Populations
Yuyao Huang, Bingqing Song, Xuedong Zhou, Hui Chen, Haohao Wang, Lei Cheng
Polymers.2021; 13(5): 828. CrossRef
The Comparison of Biofilm Formation, Mechanical and Chemical Properties between Glass Ionomer Cement and Giomer
Sylva Dinie Alinda, Anggraini Margono, Aditya Wisnu Putranto, Ike Dwi Maharti, Retno Amalina, Sherly Firsta Rahmi
The Open Dentistry Journal.2021; 15(1): 274. CrossRef
Effect of conditioning and 1 year aging on the bond strength and interfacial morphology of glass-ionomer cement bonded to dentin
Shuhei Hoshika, Shihchun Ting, Zubaer Ahmed, Fei Chen, Yu Toida, Norihito Sakaguchi, Bart Van Meerbeek, Hidehiko Sano, Sharanbir K. Sidhu
Dental Materials.2021; 37(1): 106. CrossRef
The synergistic effects of SrF2 nanoparticles, YSZ nanoparticles, and poly-ε-l-lysin on physicomechanical, ion release, and antibacterial-cellular behavior of the flowable dental composites
Saeed Hesaraki, Mohammad Karimi, Nader Nezafati
Materials Science and Engineering: C.2020; 109: 110592. CrossRef

198 View
3 Download
10 Crossref

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

Abstract PDF PubReader ePub

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.

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by

Ion release of the glass ionomer restoration with silver diamine fluoride dentin pretreatment
Kelsey Xingyun Ge, Ryan Quock, Feng Yan, Walter Yu-Hang Lam, Chun-Hung Chu, Ollie Yiru Yu
Journal of Dentistry.2024; 148: 105247. CrossRef
Dual function of anti-biofilm and modulating biofilm equilibrium of orthodontic cement containing quaternary ammonium salt
Wenqi YU, Chaochao REN, Ning ZHANG, Li CAO, Michael D. WEIR, Kai YANG, Hockin H. K. XU, Yuxing BAI
Dental Materials Journal.2023; 42(2): 149. CrossRef
Fluoride exchange by glass-ionomer dental cements and its clinical effects: a review
John W. Nicholson, Sharanbir K. Sidhu, Beata Czarnecka
Biomaterial Investigations in Dentistry.2023;[Epub] CrossRef
Effects of Protective Surface Coating on Fluoride Release and Recharge of Recent Uncoated High-Viscosity Glass Ionomer Cement
Nantawan Krajangta, Chayanee Dulsamphan, Tongjai Chotitanmapong
Dentistry Journal.2022; 10(12): 233. CrossRef
Reinforcing an immature tooth model using three different restorative materials
Pooja Misar, Hemalatha Hiremath, Chhaya Harinkhere, ShailendraS Sonawane, Vinay Sharma, KuldeepSingh Rana
Dental Research Journal.2022; 19(1): 28. CrossRef
Fluoride release from two types of fluoride-containing orthodontic adhesives: Conventional versus resin-modified glass ionomer cements—An in vitro study
Yasemin Dziuk, Sachin Chhatwani, Stephan C. Möhlhenrich, Sabrina Tulka, Ella A. Naumova, Gholamreza Danesh, Richard Johannes Wierichs
PLOS ONE.2021; 16(2): e0247716. CrossRef
Phosphate Ion Release and Alkalizing Potential of Three Bioactive Dental Materials in Comparison with Composite Resin
Shahin Kasraei, Sahebeh Haghi, Sara Valizadeh, Narges Panahandeh, Sogol Nejadkarimi, Shinn Jyh Ding
International Journal of Dentistry.2021; 2021: 1. CrossRef
The effect of the polishing procedure and surface sealant application on the fluoride release of different restorative materials
Muhittin Ugurlu, Hikmet Orhan
Journal of Conservative Dentistry.2021; 24(2): 135. CrossRef
Mechanical and antimicrobial property of different surface treated glass ionomer cements under desiccated condition
Hemalatha Hiremath, Chhaya Harinkhere, Pooja Misar, Kshitij Sabley, Trupti Bajpai
Dental Research Journal.2021; 18(1): 64. CrossRef
Dental Restorative Materials for Elderly Populations
Yuyao Huang, Bingqing Song, Xuedong Zhou, Hui Chen, Haohao Wang, Lei Cheng
Polymers.2021; 13(5): 828. CrossRef
Monomer conversion, dimensional stability, biaxial flexural strength, and fluoride release of resin-based restorative material containing alkaline fillers
Piyaphong PANPISUT, Arnit TONELUCK
Dental Materials Journal.2020; 39(4): 608. CrossRef
Factors influencing fluoride release in atraumatic restorative treatment (ART) materials: A review
P.Divya Kumari, Shahnawaz Khijmatgar, Avidyuti Chowdhury, Edward Lynch, Chitta R. Chowdhury
Journal of Oral Biology and Craniofacial Research.2019; 9(4): 315. CrossRef
Incorporation of chlorhexidine and nano-sized sodium trimetaphosphate into a glass-ionomer cement: Effect on mechanical and microbiological properties and inhibition of enamel demineralization
Márjully Eduardo Rodrigues da Silva, Marcelle Danelon, José Antonio Santos Souza, Dinah Fressato Silva, Jesse Augusto Pereira, Denise Pedrini, Emerson Rodrigues de Camargo, Alberto Carlos Botazzo Delbem, Cristiane Duque
Journal of Dentistry.2019; 84: 81. CrossRef

232 View
3 Download
13 Crossref

First
Prev
Page of 1
Next
Last

Search