Antibacterial Activity of Triclosan Incorporated Glass Ionomer Cements – An in vitro Pilot Study

2010 ◽  
Vol 35 (2) ◽  
pp. 157-161 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sajad Sainulabdeen ◽  
Prasanna Neelakantan ◽  
Sindhu Ramesh ◽  
CV Subbarao
Keyword(s):  
Antibacterial Activity ◽  
Pilot Study ◽  
Glass Ionomer Cement ◽  
Diffusion Method ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Glass Ionomer ◽  
Group I ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Ionomer Cement

Objectives: The aim of this pilot study was to evaluate the antibacterial activity of glass ionomer cement impregnated with different concentrations (0.5%, 1.25% and 2.5%) of a non releasing bactericide –Triclosan (TC) against two common cariogenic bacteria – Lactobacillus acidophilus and Streptococcus mutans; and to compare Triclosan incorporated GIC with chlorhexidine (CHX) incorporated GIC (2.5%)in terms of antibacterial activity. Methods: Chlorhexidine or Triclosan were added to glass ionomer cement powder to achieve 2.5% CHX – GIC (positive control – Group II), 0.5%, 1.25% and 2.5% TC-GIC (experimental groups III, IV and V respectively) formulations. Restorative glass ionomer cement (Fuji IX GC –Group I) served as negative control. The powder and liquid were mixed and inserted into the wells punched in agar plates (10mm × 4mm). The agar diffusion method was used to determine the antibacterial activity of the cements after 1, 7 and 30 days. Mean values were compared between different study groups using One-way ANOVA and Tukey's HSD procedure at a significance level of 5%. Results: Triclosan incorporated GIC was more effective against L.acidophilus and S.mutans than Chlorhexidine incorporated GIC. Triclosan at a concentration of 2.5% was more effective than at lower concentrations. At all time periods studied, the maximum zone of inhibition against L.acidophilus was produced by Group V. Against S.mutans, on days 1,7 and 30, there was no significant difference between Groups II and IV (p>0.05), while the other groups showed significant differences. Conclusion: The use of triclosan as an antibacterial additive in GIC holds promise and further clinical research is needed in this direction.

scholarly journals In vitro quantitative evaluation of marginal microleakage in class II restorations confected with a glass ionomer cement and two composite resins

2001 ◽  
Vol 15 (4) ◽  
pp. 277-282 ◽  
Author(s):  
Maria Fernanda Borro BIJELLA ◽  
Maria Francisca Thereza Borro BIJELLA ◽  
Salete Moura Bonifácio da SILVA
Keyword(s):  
Glass Ionomer Cement ◽  
Class Ii ◽  
Deionized Water ◽  
Composite Resins ◽  
Glass Ionomer ◽  
Dye Penetration ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Distal Direction ◽  
Ionomer Cement

This study evaluated, in vitro, marginal microleakage in class II restorations confected with the glass ionomer cement Vitremer and with the composite resins Ariston pHc and P-60. The aims of the study were to assess the effect of thermocycling on those materials and to evaluate two methods utilized in the analysis of dye penetration. Sixty premolars divided in three groups were utilized; the teeth had proximal cavities whose cervical walls were located 1 mm below the cementoenamel junction. Half of the test specimens from each group underwent thermocycling; the other half remained in deionized water, at 37ºC. The specimens were immersed, for 24 hours, in a basic 0.5% fuchsin solution at 37ºC. For the analysis of microleakage, the specimens were sectioned in a mesio-distal direction, and the observation was carried out with the software Imagetools. The results were evaluated through the 2-way ANOVA and through the Tukey’s test. All groups presented marginal microleakage. The smallest values were obtained with Vitremer, followed by those obtained with the composite resins P-60 and Ariston pHc. There was no statistically significant difference caused by thermocycling, and the method of maximum infiltration was the best for detecting the extension of microleakage.

scholarly journals Evaluation of marginal fit and microleakage of monolithic zirconia crowns cemented by bio-active and glass ionomer cements: In vitro study

2020 ◽  
Vol 23 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Radwa Hamdy Aboelenen ◽  
Ashraf Mokhtar ◽  
Hanaa Zaghloul
Keyword(s):  
Glass Ionomer Cement ◽  
Glass Ionomer ◽  
Marginal Gap ◽  
Marginal Fit ◽  
Group I ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Zirconia Crowns ◽  
Monolithic Zirconia ◽  
Ionomer Cement ◽  
Gap Values

Objective: To evaluate the marginal fit and microleakage of monolithic zirconia crowns cemented with bioactive cement (Ceramir) compared to that cemented with glass ionomer cement and to evaluate the effect of thermocycling on marginal fit. Materials and methods: Twenty sound human molar teeth were prepared to receive a monolithic zirconia crowns. Teeth were divided randomly into two equal groups according to the type of luting cement. Group I: glass ionomer cement and group II: Ceramir cement. After cementation, the vertical marginal gap was assessed by using stereomicroscope before and after thermocycling. Twenty equidistant measurement points were taken for each crown. Leakage assessment was carried out using Fuchsin dye penetration followed by digital photography under a stereomicroscope. Data were analyzed by Mann-Whitney U test to compare between the two luting cements. Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used to evaluate the effect of thermocycling on the marginal fit (P ≤ 0.05)
Results: Whether before or after thermocycling, the results showed no significant difference between the marginal gap values of the two tested groups. For both groups, there was a significant increase in marginal gap values after thermocycling. Also, there was no significant difference between leakage scores of the two tested groups. Conclusions: Similarity in the physical properties and chemical composition of the two cements result in a non- significant effect on the vertical marginal fit and the extent of microleakage of translucent zirconia crowns.  Thermocycling had a negative impact on the vertical marginal gap of the two tested luting agents.

In Vitro Effect of Simulated Tooth Brushing and Children’s Mouth Rinses on Physical Properties of Glass Ionomer Cement

2020 ◽  
Vol 44 (5) ◽  
pp. 342-347
Author(s):  
Natyla ML Silva ◽  
Victor G Costa ◽  
Letícia M Gonçalves ◽  
Isabella A Gomes ◽  
Marco Aurélio B Paschoal
Keyword(s):  
Surface Roughness ◽  
Glass Ionomer Cement ◽  
Tooth Brushing ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Glass Ionomer ◽  
Intergroup Comparison ◽  
Vitro Effect ◽  
Dependent Samples ◽  
Ionomer Cement

Objective: The present study investigated the erosive potential of children’s mouthrinses on glass ionomer cement (GIC) samples after simulated toothbrushing. Study design: Forty round-shaped samples of GIC were divided into 3 groups: G1- cetylpyridinium chloride, G2- xylitol and triclosan and G3–Malva sylvestris and xylitol and G4–distilled water as a control group. Prior to the main tests, the samples were submitted to the surface roughness measurement (Ra) and weight analysis (W). Afterward, they were brushed twice day (2× / day) for 15 days and immersed in mouthrinses after the last daily brushing. The final surface roughness (R2) and weight (W2) were determined after completing the tooth brushing-mouth rinsing cycles and the real increase in roughness (ΔRa) and real weight loss (ΔW) were calculated. In addition, stereoscopic images taken at 30× magnification. The data was analyzed by one-way ANOVA and Tukey-test post hoc tests for intergroup comparison and the T-test for dependent samples (α = 0.05). Results: Only group G2 showed increased in roughness ΔRa (1.53 ± 0.94) whereas ΔW values were not significant. However, evident cracks and voids were verified for all tested children’s rinses. Conclusion: Thus, children’s mouthrinse containing xylitol / triclosan increased the GIC roughness, especially when associated with brushing.

Does Addition of Propolis to Glass Ionomer Cement Alter its Physicomechanical Properties? An in Vitro Study

2016 ◽  
Vol 40 (5) ◽  
pp. 400-403 ◽  
Author(s):  
P Subramaniam ◽  
KL Girish Babu ◽  
G Neeraja ◽  
S Pillai
Keyword(s):  
Compressive Strength ◽  
Testing Machine ◽  
Glass Ionomer Cement ◽  
In Vitro Study ◽  
Physicomechanical Properties ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Glass Ionomer ◽  
Experimental Group ◽  
Ionomer Cement

Propolis is a natural resinous substance produced by honey bees. The antimicrobial effects of glass ionomer cement have been shown to improve with the addition of propolis; however its effect on the physicomechanical properties of the cement is not known. Aim: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the compressive strength and solubility of conventional restorative glass ionomer cement following the addition of propolis. Study design: Twenty half cylindrical samples were prepared with conventional restorative glass ionomer cement formed the control group. Another twenty samples were prepared with propolis added to conventional restorative glass ionomer cement formed the experimental group. The compressive strength was assessed using universal testing machine. To assess solubility, the samples were immersed in deionised water at room temperature, for 7 days. The solubility was measured as a difference in the weight of the sample; prior to immersion and following immersion at the end of each day. Results: The control group had a significantly higher mean compressive strength of 146.26 Mpa as compared to the experimental group (135.06 Mpa). The solubility between the groups was significant. Conclusion: In comparison to the control group, incorporation of propolis to conventional restorative glass ionomer cement decreased the compressive strength significantly. The solubility of the cement in the experimental group increased significantly over 7day period as compared to the control group.

Comparative evaluation of compressive strength of esthetic restorative materials

2018 ◽  
Vol 14 (1) ◽  
pp. 24
Author(s):  
Dr. Sazan Sherdil Saleem
Keyword(s):  
Compressive Strength ◽  
Testing Machine ◽  
Glass Ionomer Cement ◽  
Glass Ionomer ◽  
Group Iii ◽  
Group I ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Resin Modified Glass Ionomer ◽  
Restorative Materials ◽  
Ionomer Cement

The present study was aimed to evaluate and compare the compressive strength ofconventional glass ionomer cement with resin modified glass ionomer, compomer andmicrohybrid composite. A total of 40 specimens of esthetic restorative materials werefabricated using customized cylindrical teflon mould measuring 6mm height and 4mmdiameter and were grouped with ten specimens in each group, Group I: Conventionalglass ionomer cement (Fuji II). Group II: Resin modified glass ionomer (Fuji II LC).Group III: Compomer (Dyract AP) and Group IV: Microhybrid composite resin(Tetric Ceram).They were covered with Mylar strip and were cured using LED lightcuring unit. Compressive strength was evaluated using Universal testing machine. Theresult showed that there were a significant difference among the groups in whichTetric Ceram showed highest compressive strength and Fuji II showed the leastcompressive strength

scholarly journals In vitro evaluation of the marginal microleakage of amalgam restorations associated with dentin adhesive, glass ionomer cement and cavity varnish by means of different evaluation methods

2005 ◽  
Vol 13 (1) ◽  
pp. 10-14
Author(s):  
Adriano Tomio Hoshi ◽  
Salete Moura Bonifácio da Silva ◽  
Aymar Pavarini
Keyword(s):  
Glass Ionomer Cement ◽  
In Vitro Study ◽  
Evaluation Methods ◽  
Single Line ◽  
Glass Ionomer ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Amalgam Restorations ◽  
Ionomer Cement ◽  
Dentin Adhesive

This in vitro study evaluated the marginal microleakage of amalgam restorations associated with the cavity varnish Copalite - Cooley & Cooley (GI-CP), dentin adhesive OptiBond Solo - Kerr (GII-OS) and the glass ionomer cement Vitremer - 3M (GIII-VT). Forty-five premolars were employed, which were submitted to independent class II preparations at the mesial and distal aspects comprising the marginal ridges and were restored with Dispersalloy - Dentsply. Afterwards, the teeth were thermocycled and stored in 0.5% basic fuchsine for 24 hours. The evaluations were conducted on a light microscope with 150x magnification and on the Sigma Scan software with employment of a single line and segmented lines. Data analysis allowed to establish that none of the materials was able to eliminate the marginal microleakage, having the GI - CP presented greater and statistically significant values in relation to the other groups in all evaluation methods (p<0.05). The lowest values were displayed by the GIII-VT, yet with no statistically significant difference when compared to GII-OS, except for the evaluation at the Sigma Scan in single line. The three evaluation methods showed a strong positive relationship to each other.

scholarly journals In vitro evaluation of marginal microleakage of class II bonded amalgam restorations using a dentin adhesive and a glass ionomer cement

1999 ◽  
Vol 13 (2) ◽  
pp. 103-109 ◽  
Author(s):  
Edmêr Silvestre PEREIRA JÚNIOR ◽  
Maria Francisca Thereza Borro BIJELLA ◽  
Salete Moura Bonifácio da SILVA ◽  
Bernardo Gonzales VONO
Keyword(s):  
Tap Water ◽  
Glass Ionomer Cement ◽  
Class Ii ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Distilled Water ◽  
Glass Ionomer ◽  
Bonding System ◽  
Amalgam Restorations ◽  
Ionomer Cement

The purpose of this study was to evaluate in vitro the effectiveness of the dentin bonding system All Bond 2 associated with Resinomer (Bisco), and of Vitrebond (3M) glass ionomer cement fresh-mixed, both used in the bonded amalgam technique, to prevent short-term microleakage in class II cavities restored with Dispersalloy (Dentsply), an admixed alloy. The control group utilized the Copalite (Cooley & Cooley) varnish. Forty five sound human extracted premolars were used. Class II cavity preparations were made on the mesial and distal surfaces of non-carious teeth, with the gingival margins wall established 1mm under the cementum enamel junction. The specimens were divided randomly into three groups with thirty cavities in each group. The teeth were stored in distilled water for 24 hours and were thermocyled through 500 cycles in distilled water between 5°C and 55°C with a dwell time of 15 seconds. The apices and roots of the teeth were sealed. They were placed in a 37°C bath of 0.5% basic fuchsin dye for 24 hours. The teeth were washed in tap water for 24 hours and cut. The microleakage scores per restoration were averaged and three values of various test groups were subjected to the Kruskal-Wallis and Dunn test at a significance level of p < 0.05. The All Bond 2/Resinomer showed significantly less microleakage at gingival margins than the Vitrebond and Copalite lined to amalgam restorations. The Vitrebond fresh mixed, lined to amalgam restorations, showed significantly less microleakage than the Copalite lined to amalgam restorations.

scholarly journals The Effect of Three Dentinal Sealers on Retention of Crowns cemented with Resin-modified Glass Ionomer Cement: An in vitro Study

2015 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
pp. 10-15
Author(s):  
Ashish R Jain ◽  
R Pradeep ◽  
Sashi Deepth Reddy Janapala ◽  
P Sesha Reddy
Keyword(s):  
Bond Strength ◽  
Glass Ionomer Cement ◽  
T Test ◽  
Control Group ◽  
P Value ◽  
Glass Ionomer ◽  
Resin Modified Glass Ionomer ◽  
Desensitizing Agents ◽  
Ionomer Cement

ABSTRACT Background Dentinal sealers (desensitizing agents) are used to protect the pulp from possible injurious effects after tooth preparation and also prevent the penetration of dentinal tubules by bacteria and their products which are currently thought to cause most of the pulpal inflammation under the crowns. Aim The purpose of this study is to determine the efficacy of effect of three different desensitizing agents on retention of crowns cemented with resin-modified glass ionomer cement. Materials and methods Forty freshly extracted maxillary first premolars were notched for retention and the teeth specimens were mounted in autopolymerising resin. The axial height of all the specimens was 4 mm with a 20° angle of convergence. Impressions of the prepared teeth were made, later waxed invested and casted. Thirty teeth were coated with three different desensitizing agents were used in this study: Cavity varnish (Namuvar, Deepti Dental Products), Glutaraldehyde (Gluma- Heraeus Kulzer), Resin (AdheSE, Ivoclar Vivadent). Ten teeth were not coated with desensitizing agents to act as control group. Independent T test used to compare the mean values between groups. Results Tensile strength for average surface area of the groups I, II, III and IV are 0.3759, 0.2375, 0.2411, 0.2348 respectively. The t-test shows ‘p’-value is statistically not significant (p < 0.05) for groups II and III, where as in group IV ‘p’-value is statistically significant (p < 0.01). Conclusion The use of AdheSE/resin-based dentinal sealer showed increase in bond strength of the crowns luted with resin-modified glass ionomer cement when compared with control group. This study advocates the use of resin-based sealer or a glutaraldehyde-based sealer before cementation of the crowns. The cavity varnish, however, reduces the bond strength and is not acceptable. How to cite this article Janapala SDR, Reddy PS, Jain AR, Pradeep R. The Effect of Three Dentinal Sealers on Retention of Crowns cemented with Resin-modified Glass Ionomer Cement: An in vitro Study. World J Dent 2015;6(1):10-15.

scholarly journals Validity of using bovine teeth as a substitute for human counterparts in adhesive tests

2003 ◽  
Vol 9 (1-2) ◽  
pp. 201-207 ◽  
Author(s):  
F. Saleh ◽  
N. Taymour
Keyword(s):  
Testing Machine ◽  
Glass Ionomer Cement ◽  
Glass Ionomer ◽  
Group I ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Strength Tests ◽  
Bond Strengths ◽  
Bovine Enamel ◽  
Tensile Bond Strengths ◽  
Ionomer Cement

Shear and tensile bond strengths of 40 human and 40 bovine teeth were compared. Teeth were randomly assigned to group I, which received light-cured composite resin, or group II, which received light-cured resin-reinforced glass ionomer cement. The groups were subdivided for shear and tensile bond strength tests, which were conducted on a universal testing machine installed to a computer transducer. Statistical analysis revealed a highly significant difference between shear and tensile bond strengths of human and bovine enamel; however, regression prediction equations support the use of bovine teeth as a reliable substitute to human counterparts in bonding studies of orthodontic adhesion

In vitro Biocompatibility Tests of Glass Ionomer Cements Impregnated with Collagen or Bioactive glass to Fibroblasts

2012 ◽  
Vol 36 (3) ◽  
pp. 269-274 ◽  
Author(s):  
C Subbarao ◽  
P Neelakantan ◽  
CV Subbarao
Keyword(s):  
Bioactive Glass ◽  
Cell Attachment ◽  
Glass Ionomer Cement ◽  
Mineral Trioxide Aggregate ◽  
Fibroblast Cell ◽  
Glass Ionomer ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Electron Microscopes ◽  
Ionomer Cement

Aim and Design: To evaluate the biocompatibility of glass ionomer cement (GIC) impregnated with collagen or bioactive glass to BHK-21 fibroblasts in vitro. Mineral Trioxide Aggregate was used as the standard for comparison. Human maxillary central incisors (n=70) were instrumented with a rotary NiTi system and filled. Following resection of the apical 3mm, root end cavities were prepared and restored with conventional GIC (group 1) or GIC with 0.01%, 0.1% or 1% collagen (groups 2, 3, 4 respectively) or, 10%, 30 % or 50% bioactive glass (groups 5,6,7 respectively), or Mineral Trioxide Aggregate (group 8). The root slices were incubated in tissue culture plates with BHK-21 fibroblast cell line. Phase contrast and scanning electron microscopes were used to score cell quantity, morphology and cell attachment. The data were statistically analyzed by one way ANOVA with Post Hoc Tukey HSD test (p = 0.05). Results and conclusions: Group 5 showed the highest scores which was significantly higher than all other groups (p&lt;0.05) except group 8, with which there was no significant difference (p&gt;0.05). Glass ionomer cement with 10% bioactive glass showed better adhesion and spreading of cells than glass ionomer cement with 0.01% collagen. The biocompatibility of collagen and bioactive glass was concentration dependent. The addition of bio active glass improved the biocompatibility of glass ionomer cement to fibroblasts better than addition of collagen.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document