Advertisement

Clinical Oral Investigations

, Volume 17, Issue 2, pp 619–626 | Cite as

Evaluation of a conventional glass ionomer cement with new zinc formulation: effect of coating, aging and storage agents

  • Julius Zoergiebel
  • Nicoleta Ilie
Original Article

Abstract

Objective

The study focused on a recently launched conventional glass ionomer cement (GIC) with a particular chemical formulation of both, filler and acrylic liquid, by analysing its mechanical behaviour in comparison to three conventional GICs. Furthermore, the effect of resin coating and storage conditions was evaluated.

Materials and methods

Three commercially available GICs were chosen: Riva Self Cure (SDI), Fuji IX Fast (GC) and Fuji IX GP Extra/Equia (GC). Additionally a newly developed zinc-containing GIC—ChemFil Rock (Dentsply)—was tested. Mechanical properties were determined at macro- [flexural strength (FS) and modulus of elasticity (E flexural)] and micro-scale [Vickers hardness (VH) and indentation modulus (E)] after storing coated and uncoated specimens in artificial saliva and distilled water for 7 and 30 days.

Results

ChemFil Rock revealed the highest FS, but the lowest VH and E. The micro-mechanical properties of the analysed GICs did neither benefit from the new zinc formulation nor from resin coating. A resin coating is nevertheless a valuable support for GIC fillings, since it offers the absence of visible surface defects like crazing and voids, and thus, it led to significant improvements in flexural strength. This statement is also valid for ChemFil Rock, contrary to manufacture recommendation. The impact of storage agent and storage duration on the measured properties was low.

Conclusions

The new development (ChemFil Rock) might represent a promising approach regarding longevity of GIC fillings in molar regions, due to the high flexural strength and the absence of visible surface defects like crazing and voids.

Clinical relevance

All GICs should receive surface protection in order to perform their maximum in stability.

Keywords

Glass ionomer cements Coating Storage Micro-mechanical properties 

Notes

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. 1.
    Glasspoole EA, Erickson RL, Davidson CL (2002) Effect of surface treatments on the bond strength of glass ionomers to enamel. Dent Mater 18:454–462PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Hunt PR (1994) Glass ionomers: the next generation. A summary of the current situation. J Esthet Dent 6:192–194PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Mount GJ (1994) Buonocore Memorial Lecture. Glass-ionomer cements: past, present and future. Oper Dent 19:82–90PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Wiegand A, Buchalla W, Attin T (2007) Review on fluoride-releasing restorative materials—fluoride release and uptake characteristics, antibacterial activity and influence on caries formation. Dent Mater 23:343–362PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Naasan MA, Watson TF (1998) Conventional glass ionomers as posterior restorations. A status report for the American Journal of Dentistry. Am J Dent 11:36–45PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ilie N, Hickel R, Valceanu A, Huth K (2012) Fracture toughness of dental restorative materials. Clin Oral Invest 16:489–498CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Crisp S, Wilson AD (1974) Reactions in glass ionomer cements: I. Decomposition of the powder. J Dent Res 53:1408–1413PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Earl MS, Mount GJ, Hume WR (1989) The effect of varnishes and other surface treatments on water movement across the glass ionomer cement surface. II. Aust Dent J 34:326–329PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hotta M, Hirukawa H, Yamamoto K (1992) Effect of coating materials on restorative glass-ionomer cement surface. Oper Dent 17:57–61PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ribeiro AP, Serra MC, Paulillo LA, Rodrigues Junior AL (1999) Effectiveness of surface protection for resin-modified glass-ionomer materials. Quintessence Int 30:427–431PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Watson T, Banerjee A (1993) Effectiveness of glass-ionomer surface protection treatments: a scanning optical microscope study. Eur J Prosthodont Restor Dent 2:85–90PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    DENTSPLY Wissenschaftliches Kompendium ChemFil Rock. www.dentsply.de. Accessed 14 Feb 2011
  13. 13.
    Wilson ADMJ (1988) Glass ionomer cement. Quintessence Publishers, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Crisp S, Lewis BG, Wilson AD (1976) Characterization of glass-ionomer cements 1. Long term hardness and compressive strength. J Dent 4:162–166PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Mitra SB, Kedrowski BL (1994) Long-term mechanical properties of glass ionomers. Dent Mater 10:78–82PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Pearson GJ, Atkinson AS (1991) Long-term flexural strength, of glass ionomer cements. Biomaterials 12:658–660PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Crisp S, Lewis BG, Wilson AD (1979) Characterization of glass-ionomer cements 5. The effect of the tartaric acid concentration in the liquid component. J Dent 7:304–312PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Wasson EA, Nicholson JW (1991) Studies on the setting chemistry of glass-ionomer cements. Clin Mater 7:289–293CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Mount GJ, Hume WR (1998) Preservation and restoration of tooth structure. Harcourt Brace & Company Ltd/Mosby International, LondonGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Gemalmaz D, Yoruc B, Ozcan M, Alkumru HN (1998) Effect of early water contact on solubility of glass ionomer luting cements. J Prosthet Dent 80:474–478PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Cattani-Lorente MA, Godin C, Meyer JM (1993) Early strength of glass ionomer cements. Dent Mater 9:57–62PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Prosser HJ, Powis DR, Wilson AD (1986) Glass-ionomer cements of improved flexural strength. J Dent Res 65:146–148PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Xie D, Brantley WA, Culbertson BM, Wang G (2000) Mechanical properties and microstructures of glass-ionomer cements. Dent Mater 16:129–138PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    De Barra E, Hill RG (2000) Influence of glass composition on the properties of glass polyalkenoate cements. Part III: influence of fluorite content. Biomaterials 21:563–569PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Darling M, Hill R (1994) Novel polyalkenoate (glass-ionomer) dental cements based on zinc silicate glasses. Biomaterials 15:299–306PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Boyd D, Towler M, Law R, Hill R (2006) An investigation into the structure and reactivity of calcium-zinc-silicate ionomer glasses using MAS-NMR spectroscopy. J Mater Sci Mater Med 17:397–402PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Boyd D, Towler M (2005) The processing, mechanical properties and bioactivity of zinc based glass ionomer cements. J Mater Sci Mater Med 16:843–850PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Moshaverinia A, Roohpour N, Darr JA, Rehman IU (2009) Synthesis and characterization of a novel N-vinylcaprolactam-containing acrylic acid terpolymer for applications in glass-ionomer dental cements. Acta Biomater 5:2101–2108PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Prentice LH, Tyas MJ, Burrow MF (2005) The effect of particle size distribution on an experimental glass-ionomer cement. Dent Mater 21:505–510PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Nicholson JW, Wilson AD (2000) The effect of storage in aqueous solutions on glass-ionomer and zinc polycarboxylate dental cements. J Mater Sci Mater Med 11:357–360PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Wilson AD, Hill RG, Warrens CP, Lewis BG (1989) The influence of polyacid molecular weight on some properties of glass-ionomer cements. J Dent Res 68:89–94PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Crisp S, Lewis BG, Wilson AD (1976) Characterization of glass-ionomer cements: 2. Effect of the powder: liquid ratio on the physical properties. J Dent 4:287–290PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Crisp S, Lewis BG, Wilson AD (1977) Characterization of glass-ionomer cements. 3. Effect of polyacid concentration on the physical properties. J Dent 5:51–56PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Griffin SG, Hill RG (1999) Influence of glass composition on the properties of glass polyalkenoate cements. Part I: influence of aluminium to silicon ratio. Biomaterials 20:1579–1586PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Restorative DentistryDental School of the Ludwig-Maximilians-UniversityMunichGermany

Personalised recommendations