Journal of Contemporary Dentistry

Register      Login

VOLUME 9 , ISSUE 2 ( May-August, 2019 ) > List of Articles

ORIGINAL RESEARCH

Effect of Aging on Compressive Strength, Fluoride Release, Water Sorption, and Solubility of Ceramic-reinforced Glass Ionomers: An In Vitro Study

Shaimaa H Dawood, Mohamed M Kandil, Dalia I El-Korashy

Keywords : Amalgomer CR, Ceramic-reinforced glass ionomer, Compressive strength, Equia fill, Fluoride release, Fuji VIII, High-viscosity glass ionomer, Resin-modified glass ionomer, Solubility, Water sorption

Citation Information : Dawood SH, Kandil MM, El-Korashy DI. Effect of Aging on Compressive Strength, Fluoride Release, Water Sorption, and Solubility of Ceramic-reinforced Glass Ionomers: An In Vitro Study. J Contemp Dent 2019; 9 (2):78-84.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10031-1260

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 01-08-2019

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2019; The Author(s).


Abstract

Aim: The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of aging on compressive strength; fluoride release; water sorption; and solubility of ceramic-reinforced (amalgomer CR), resin-modified (Fuji VIII), and high-viscosity (Equia fill) glass ionomers. Materials and methods: A total of 141 specimens were prepared, 47 for each restorative material. For compressive strength testing, cylindrical specimens (4 mm diameter and 6 mm thickness) were prepared and tested after 24 hours and 6 months of storage in deionized water (n = 10). Disk-shaped specimens with 6 mm diameter and 3 mm thickness were prepared for fluoride release (n = 7) and measured at 24, 48 hours, 7 days, 1, 3, and 6 months. Disk-shaped specimens (15 mm diameter and 1 mm thickness) were prepared for water sorption and solubility testing and measured at 7 days, 1, 3, and 6 months (n = 5). Two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and one-way ANOVA were used for statistical analysis of data. Results: Amalgomer CR and Fuji VIII showed the highest compressive strength, whereas Equia fill showed the lowest value after 24 hours. After 6 months of aging, the compressive strength of amalgomer CR was significantly decreased. Amalgomer CR showed the highest initial fluoride release followed by Fuji VIII and Equia fill. Equia fill showed the least amount of water sorption and solubility followed by Fuji VIII and amalgomer CR. Significance: Zirconia fillers enhanced the properties of glass ionomer; however, this improvement was dramatically reduced with water aging.


HTML PDF Share
  1. Cury JA, de Oliveira BH, dos Santos AP, et al. Are fluoride releasing dental materials clinically effective on caries control? Dent Mater 2016;32(3):323–333. DOI: 10.1016/j.dental.2015.12.002.
  2. Bansal R, Bansal T. A Comparative evaluation of the amount of fluoride release and re-release after recharging from aesthetic restorative materials: an in vitro study. J Clin Diagn Res 2015;9(8):Zc11–Zc14. DOI: 10.7860/JCDR/2015/11926.6278.
  3. Wilson AD. Resin-modified glass-ionomer cements. Int J Prosthodont 1990;3(5):425–429.
  4. Sidhu SK. Glass-ionomer cement restorative materials: a sticky subject? Aust Dent J 2011;56(Suppl 1):23–30. DOI: 10.1111/j.1834-7819.2010.01293.x.
  5. Smithson J. Technique tips--the modified super-closed sandwich technique. Dent Update 2013;40(2):155–156.
  6. Mickenautsch S. High-viscosity glass-ionomer cements for direct posterior tooth restorations in permanent teeth: the evidence in brief. J Dent 2016;55:121–123. DOI: 10.1016/j.jdent.2016.10.007.
  7. Bamise C, Mejabi M, Esan T. Short term sorption effect on three esthetic dental filling materials in various media. Adv Res 2015;5(6): 1–9. DOI: 10.9734/AIR/2015/20183.
  8. Gurgan S, Kutuk ZB, Ergin E, et al. Clinical performance of a glass ionomer restorative system: a 6-year evaluation. Clin Oral Investig 2017;21(7):2335–2343. DOI: 10.1007/s00784-016-2028-4.
  9. Cugati N, Bhat SS, Hegde SK. Comparison of anticariogenic effect of Amalgomer CR, Fuji VII and Heliomolar Refill in the cavosurface margin-An in-vitro study. J Contemp Dent Pract 2011;2(3).
  10. Billington R. Glass ionomer come of age. Dentist 2004; 2–3.
  11. Bariker RH, Mandroli PS. An in-vitro evaluation of antibacterial effect of Amalgomer CR and Fuji VII against bacteria causing severe early childhood caries. J Indian Soc Pedod Prev Dent 2016;34(1):23. DOI: 10.4103/0970-4388.175506.
  12. Dentistry-water-based cements Part, I., Powder/liquid acid-base cements. ISO: 9917-1.
  13. Rao BS, Moosani GK, Shanmugaraj M, et al. Fluoride release and uptake of five dental restoratives from mouthwashes and dentifrices. J Int Oral Health 2015;7(1):1–5.
  14. Patil S, Goud K, Sajjan G. Fluoride release from various restorative materials over a 3 month period-an in vitro study. J Pierre Fauchard Acad 2012;26(1):30–34. DOI: 10.1016/S0970-2199(12)61006-6.
  15. Mousavinasab SM, Meyers I. Fluoride release and uptake by glass ionomer cements, compomers and Giomers. Res J Biol Sci 2009;4(5):609–616.
  16. ISO. Dentistry–polymer-based restorative materials. Geneva, Switzerland: International Organization for Standardization; 2009.
  17. Wang Y, Darvell B. Hertzian load-bearing capacity of a ceramic-reinforced glass ionomer cement stored wet and dry. Dent Mater 2009;25(8):952–955. DOI: 10.1016/j.dental.2009.02.006.
  18. Gu Y, Yap AUJ, Cheang P, et al. Zirconia–glass ionomer cement–a potential substitute for Miracle Mix. Scrip Mater 2005;52(2):113–116. DOI: 10.1016/j.scriptamat.2004.09.019.
  19. Abdulsamee N, Elkhadem AH. Zirconomer and zirconomer improved (White Amalgams): restorative materials for the future. Review. EC Dent Sci 2017;15:134–150.
  20. Mitra SB, Kedrowski BL. Long-term mechanical properties of glass ionomers. Dent Mater 1994;10(2):78–82. DOI: 10.1016/0109-5641(94)90044-2.
  21. Nigam AG, Jaiswal J, Murthy R, et al. Estimation of fluoride release from various dental materials in different media—an in vitro study. Int J Clin Pediatr Dent 2009;2(1):1. DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10005-1033.
  22. Upadhyay S, Rao A, Shenoy R. Comparison of the amount of fluoride release from nanofilled resin modified glass ionomer, conventional and resin modified glass ionomer cements. J Dent 2013;10(2):134–140.
  23. Thanjal N, Billington RW, Shahid S, et al. Kinetics of fluoride ion release from dental restorative glass ionomer cements: the influence of ultrasound, radiant heat and glass composition. J Mater Sci Mater Med 2010;21(2):589–595.
  24. Bahadure R, Pandey RK, Kumar R, et al. An estimation of fluoride release from various dental restorative materials at different pH: in vitro study. J Indian Soc Pedod Prev Dent 2012;30(2):122. DOI: 10.4103/0970-4388.99983.
  25. Kim YK, Kim K-H, Kwon T-Y. Setting reaction of dental resin-modified glass ionomer restoratives as a function of curing depth and postirradiation time. J Spectrosc 2015; 462687. DOI: 10.1155/2015/462687.
  26. Beriat NC, Nalbant D. Water absorption and HEMA release of resin-modified glass-ionomers. Eur J Dent 2009;3(4):267. DOI: 10.1055/s-0039-1697443.
  27. Kanchanavasita W, Anstice H, Pearson GJ. Water sorption characteristics of resin-modified glass-ionomer cements. Biomaterials 1997;18(4):343–349. DOI: 10.1016/S0142-9612(96)00124-X.
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.