scholarly journals Glass Ionomer Cement Modified by Resin with Incorporation of Nanohydroxyapatite: In Vitro Evaluation of Physical-Biological Properties

Nanomaterials ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (7) ◽  
pp. 1412 ◽  
Author(s):  
Luis Eduardo Genaro ◽  
Giovana Anovazzi ◽  
Josimeri Hebling ◽  
Angela Cristina Cilense Zuanon
Keyword(s):  
Cell Viability ◽  
Glass Ionomer Cement ◽  
Biological Properties ◽  
Glass Ionomer ◽  
Future Studies ◽  
Resin Modified Glass Ionomer ◽  
Restorative Materials ◽  
Ionomer Cement ◽  
Scanning Electron

Resin-modified glass ionomer cement (RMGIC) has important properties. However, like other restorative materials, it has limitations such as decreased biocompatibility. The incorporation of nanoparticles (NP) in the RMGIC resulted in improvements in some of its properties. The aim of this study was to evaluate the physical-biological properties of RMGIC with the addition of nanohydroxyapatite (HANP). Material and Methods: Vitremer RMGIC was used, incorporating HANP by amalgamator, vortex and manual techniques, totaling ten experimental groups. The distribution and dispersion of the HANP were evaluated qualitatively by field emission scanning electron microscope (SEM-FEG). The evaluation of image porosity (SEM-FEG) with the help of imageJ. Cell viability 3-(4,5-dimethylthiazol-2yl)-2,5-diphenyl tetrazoline bromide (MTT) and cell morphology analyses were performed on MDPC-23 odontoblastoid cells at 24 and 72 h. Results: It was possible to observe good dispersion and distribution of HANP in the samples in all experimental groups. The incorporation of 5% HANP into the vortex stirred RMGIC resulted in fewer pores. The increase in the concentration of HANP was directly proportional to the decrease in cytotoxicity. Conclusions: It is concluded that the use of a vortex with the incorporation of 5% HANP is the most appropriate mixing technique when considering the smallest number of pores inside the material. A higher concentration of HANP resulted in better cell viability, suggesting that this association is promising for future studies of new restorative materials.

scholarly journals Marginal Leakage of Endodontic Temporary Restorative Materials around Access Cavities Prepared with Pre-Endodontic Composite Build-Up: An In Vitro Study

Materials ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 13 (7) ◽  
pp. 1700
Author(s):  
Atsushi Kameyama ◽  
Aoi Saito ◽  
Akiko Haruyama ◽  
Tomoaki Komada ◽  
Setsuko Sugiyama ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Zinc Oxide ◽  
Resin Composite ◽  
Glass Ionomer Cement ◽  
In Vitro Study ◽  
Restorative Material ◽  
Glass Ionomer ◽  
Zinc Oxide Eugenol ◽  
Restorative Materials ◽  
Ionomer Cement

This study aimed to examine the marginal seal between various commercial temporary restorative materials and exposed dentin/built-up composite. Sixty bovine incisors were cut above the cemento-enamel junction, and half of the dentin was removed to form a step, which was built up using flowable resin composite. The root canals were irrigated, filled with calcium hydroxide, and sealed using one of six temporary sealing materials (hydraulic temporary restorative material, temporary stopping material, zinc oxide eugenol cement, glass-ionomer cement, auto-cured resin-based temporary restorative material, and light-cured resin-based temporary restorative material) (n = 10 for each material). The samples were thermocycled 500 times and immersed in an aqueous solution of methylene blue. After 2 days, they were cut along the long axis of the tooth and the depth of dye penetration was measured at the dentin side and the built-up composite side. For the margins of the pre-endodontic resin composite build-up, the two resin-based temporary restorative materials showed excellent sealing. Hydraulic temporary restorative material had a moderate sealing effect, but the sealing effect of both zinc oxide eugenol cement and glass-ionomer cement was poorer.

scholarly journals Quantitative Evaluation by Glucose Diffusion of Microleakage in Aged Calcium Silicate-Based Open-Sandwich Restorations

2012 ◽  
Vol 2012 ◽  
pp. 1-6 ◽  
Author(s):  
S. Koubi ◽  
H. Elmerini ◽  
G. Koubi ◽  
H. Tassery ◽  
J. Camps
Keyword(s):  
Calcium Silicate ◽  
Glass Ionomer Cement ◽  
Glass Ionomer ◽  
Calcium Silicate Cement ◽  
Resin Modified Glass Ionomer ◽  
Glucose Diffusion ◽  
Negative Controls ◽  
Phosphate Buffered Saline ◽  
Ionomer Cement

This study compared thein vitromarginal integrity of open-sandwich restorations based on aged calcium silicate cement versus resin-modified glass ionomer cement. Class II cavities were prepared on 30 extracted human third molars. These teeth were randomly assigned to two groups () to compare a new hydraulic calcium silicate cement designed for restorative dentistry (Biodentine, Septodont, Saint Maur des Fossés, France) with a resin-modified glass ionomer cement (Ionolux, Voco, Cuxhaven, Germany) in open-sandwich restorations covered with a light-cured composite. Positive () and negative () controls were included. The teeth simultaneously underwent thermocycling and mechanocycling using a fatigue cycling machine (1,440 cycles, 5–55°C; 86,400 cycles, 50 N/cm2). The specimens were then stored in phosphate-buffered saline to simulate aging. After 1 year, the teeth were submitted to glucose diffusion, and the resulting data were analyzed with a nonparametric Mann-Whitney test. The Biodentine group and the Ionolux group presented glucose concentrations of 0.074 ± 0.035 g/L and 0.080 ± 0.032 g/L, respectively. No statistically significant differences were detected between the two groups. Therefore, the calcium silicate-based material performs as well as the resin-modified glass ionomer cement in open-sandwich restorations.

Biocompatibility of a Conventional Glass Ionomer, Ceramic Reinforced Glass Ionomer, Giomer and Resin Composite to Fibroblasts: In vitro Study

2013 ◽  
Vol 37 (4) ◽  
pp. 403-406 ◽  
Author(s):  
S Tamilselvam ◽  
MJ Divyanand ◽  
P Neelakantan
Keyword(s):  
Cell Viability ◽  
Mtt Assay ◽  
Resin Composite ◽  
Glass Ionomer Cement ◽  
In Vitro Study ◽  
Glass Ionomer ◽  
Time Periods ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Ionomer Cement

Objective: This aim of this study was at compare the fibroblast cytotoxicicty of four restorative materials - a conventional glass ionomer cement (GC Fuji Type II GIC), a ceramic reinforced glass ionomer cement (Amalgomer), a giomer (Beautifil II) and a resin composite (Filtek Z350) at three different time periods (24, 48 and 72 hours). Method: The succinyl dehydrogenase (MTT) assay was employed. Cylindrical specimens of each material (n=15) were prepared and stored in Dulbecco's modified Eagle medium, following which L929 fibroblasts were cultured in 96 well plates. After 24 hours of incubation, the MTT assay was performed to detect the cell viability. The method was repeated after 48 and 72 hours. The impact of materials and exposure times on cytotoxicity of fibroblasts was statistically analyzed using two way ANOVA (P=0.05). Results: Both time and material had an impact on cell viability, with giomer demonstrating the maximum cell viability at all time periods. The cell viability in the giomer group was significantly different from all other materials at 24 and 72 hours (P<0.05), while at 48 hours giomer was significantly different only with resin composite (P<0.05). Conclusions: Giomers showed better biocompatibility than conventional and ceramic reinforced glass ionomer cements and, resin composite. Ceramic reinforced glass ionomer demonstrated superior biocompatibility compared to conventional glass ionomer.

A Retrospective Study of the 3-Year Survival Rate of Resin-Modified Glass-Ionomer Cement Class II Restorations in Primary Molars

2016 ◽  
Vol 40 (1) ◽  
pp. 8-13 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mark Webman ◽  
Ezat Mulki ◽  
Rosie Roldan ◽  
Oscar Arevalo ◽  
John F Roberts ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Survival Rate ◽  
Glass Ionomer Cement ◽  
Class Ii ◽  
Radiographic Evaluation ◽  
Primary Molars ◽  
Glass Ionomer ◽  
Design Data ◽  
Resin Modified Glass Ionomer ◽  
Restorative Materials ◽  
Ionomer Cement

Objective: To determine the three-year survival rate of Class II resin-modified glass-ionomer cement (RMGIC), Vitremer, restorations in primary molars and to compare these results with measurements of survival of Class II restorations of standard restorative materials. Study Design: Data on Class II restorations placed in primary molars during a six-year period were collected through a chart review and radiographic evaluation in the office of a board-certified pediatric dentist. A radiograph showing that the restoration was intact was required at least 3 years after placement to qualify as successful. If no radiograph existed, the restoration was excluded. If the restoration was not found to be intact radiographically or was charted as having been replaced before three years it was recorded as a failure. The results of this study were then compared to other standard restorative materials using normalized annual failure rates. Results: Of the 1,231 Class II resinmodified glass-ionomer cement restorations placed over six years 427 met the inclusion criteria. There was a 97.42% survival rate for a 3-year period equivalent to an annual failure rate of 0.86%. Conclusions: A novel approach comparing materials showed that in this study Vitremer compared very favorably to previously published success rates of other standard restorative materials (amalgam, composite, stainless steel crown, compomer) and other RMGIC studies.

Protective Effect of Resin Coating on the Microleakage of Class V Restorations Following Treatment with Carbamide Peroxide In Vitro

2010 ◽  
Vol 35 (6) ◽  
pp. 634-640 ◽  
Author(s):  
H. Yu ◽  
Q. Li ◽  
T. Attin ◽  
Y. Wang
Keyword(s):  
Protective Effect ◽  
Clinical Relevance ◽  
Glass Ionomer Cement ◽  
Glass Ionomer ◽  
Carbamide Peroxide ◽  
Class V ◽  
Resin Coating ◽  
Resin Modified Glass Ionomer ◽  
Ionomer Cement

Clinical Relevance Carbamide peroxide treatment increased the microleakage of Class V conventional glass-ionomer cement and resin modified glass-ionomer cement restorations. The resin coating is an effective method to avoid bleaching-induced microleakage without affecting the bleaching outcome.

scholarly journals 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

2021 ◽  
Vol 45 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Zeinab M. Zaki ◽  
Maha A. Niazy ◽  
Mohamed H. Zaazou ◽  
Shaymaa M. Nagi ◽  
Dina W. Elkassas
Keyword(s):  
Surface Texture ◽  
Clinical Performance ◽  
Glass Ionomer Cement ◽  
Glass Ionomer ◽  
Class V ◽  
Resin Modified Glass Ionomer ◽  
Restorative Materials ◽  
Significant Change ◽  
Ionomer Cement

Abstract Background The 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. Results There 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. Conclusions All 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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document