Physical property investigation of contemporary glass ionomer and resin-modified glass ionomer restorative materials
- 265 Downloads
The objective of this study was to investigate selected physical properties of nine contemporary and recently marketed glass ionomer cement (GIC) and four resin-modified glass ionomer cement (RMGI) dental restorative materials.
Materials and methods
Specimens (n = 12) were fabricated for fracture toughness and flexure strength using standardized, stainless steel molds. Testing was completed on a universal testing machine until failure. Knoop hardness was obtained using failed fracture toughness specimens on a microhardness tester, while both flexural modulus and flexural toughness was obtained by analysis of the flexure strength results data. Testing was completed at 1 h, 24 h, 1 week, and then at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months. Mean data was analyzed with Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney (p = 0.05).
Physical properties results were material dependent. Physical properties of the GIC and RMGI products were inferior at 1 h compared to that at 24 h. Some improvement in selected physical properties were noted over time, but development processes were basically concluded by 24 h. A few materials demonstrated improved physical properties over the course of the evaluation.
GIC and RMGI physical property performance over time was material dependent;
Polyalkenoate maturation processes are essentially complete by 24 h;
Although differences in GIC physical properties were noted, the small magnitude of the divergences may render such to be unlikely of clinical significance;
Modest increases in some GIC physical properties were noted especially flexural modulus and hardness, which lends support to reports of a maturing hydrogel matrix;
Overall, GIC product physical properties were more stable than RMGI;
A similar modulus reduction at 6 months for both RMGI and GIC produced may suggest a polyalkenoate matrix change; and
Globally, RMGI products demonstrated higher values of flexure strength, flexural toughness, and fracture toughness than GIC materials.
As compared to RMGI materials, conventional glass ionomer restorative materials demonstrate more stability in physical properties.
KeywordsPolyalkenoate Glass ionomer Resin modified glass ionomer Hydrogel matrix Physical property testing
The opinions offered in the work are those of the authors only and do not reflect the official opinion of the United States Air Force, Department of Defense, or the United States Government.
This work was supported by 81 Medical Group Protocol FKE20150010N.FI.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.
For this type of study, formal consent is not required.
- 2.Wilson AD, Batchelor RF (1967) Dental silicate cements I. The chemistry of erosion. J Dent Res 46:1078–1085Google Scholar
- 3.Wilson AD (1989) Developments in glass-ionomer cements. Int J Prosthodont 2:438–446Google Scholar
- 9.Sidhu SK, Nicholson JW (2016) A review of glass ionomer cements for clinical dentistry. J Funct Biomater 28. https://doi.org/10.3390/jfb7030016
- 12.Khoroushi M, Keshani F (2013) A review of glass-ionomers: from conventional glass-ionomer to bioactive glass-ionomer. Dent Res J (Isfahan) 10:411–420Google Scholar
- 16.McLean JW, Gasser O (1985) Glass cermet cements. Quintessence Int 16:333–343Google Scholar
- 17.Simmons JJ (1983) The miracle mixture: glass-ionomer and alloy powder. Tex Dent J 100:6–12Google Scholar
- 21.Tüzüner T, Kuşgӧz A, Er K, Taşdemіr T, Buruk K, Kemer B (2011) Antibacterial activity and physical properties of conventional glass-ionomer cements containing chlorhexidine diacetate/cetrimide mixtures. J Esthet Restor Dent 23:46–56. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1708-8240.2010.00385.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 25.Sidhu SK, Watson TF (1995) Resin-modified glass ionomer materials. A status report for the American Journal of Dentistry. Am J Dent 8:59–67Google Scholar
- 26.Friedl KH, Powers JM, Hiller KA (1995) Influence of different factors on bond strength of hybrid ionomers. Oper Dent 20:74–80Google Scholar
- 33.Tay FR, Smales RJ, Ngo H, Wei SH, Pashley DH (2000) Effect of different conditioning protocols on adhesion of a GIC to dentin. J Adhes Dent 3:153–167Google Scholar
- 34.Hammesfahr PD Developments in resionomer systems. In: Hunt P (ed) Glass ionomers: The next generation. Proceedings of the 2nd International Symposium on Glass Ionomers, June 1994, Philadelphia, PA. International Symposia in Dentistry, PC, Philadelphia, pp 47–55Google Scholar
- 47.ŠSantić A, Čalogović AM, Pavić L, Gladić J, Vučić Z, Lovrić D, Prskalo K, Janković B, Tarle Z, Moguš-Milanković A (2015) New insights into the setting processes of glass ionomer cements from analysis of dielectric properties. J Am Ceram Soc 98:3869–3876. https://doi.org/10.1111/jace.13830 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 51.Shiozawa M, Takahashi H, Iwasaki N (2014) Fluoride release and mechanical properties after 1-year water storage of recent restorative glass ionomer cements. Clin Oral Invest 18:1053–1060. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-013-1074-4
- 65.Fagundes TC, Barata THE, Bresciani E, Santiago SL, Franco EB, Lauris JRP, Navarro MF (2014) Seven-year clinical performance of resin composite versus resin-modified glass ionomer restorations in noncarious cervical lesions. Oper Dent 39:578–587. https://doi.org/10.2341/13-054-C CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 66.McComb D, Erickson RL, Maxymiw WG, Wood RE (2002) A clinical comparison of glass ionomer, resin-modified glass ionomer and resin composite restorations in the treatment of cervical caries in xerostomic head and neck radiation patients. Oper Dent 27:430–437Google Scholar
- 70.Mickenautsch S, Yengopal V, Leal SC, Oliveria LB, Bezerra AC, Bonecker M (2009) Absence of carious lesions of glass-ionomer and amalgam restorations: a meta-analysis. Eur J Paediatr Dent 10:41–46Google Scholar
- 75.ISO 9917-2:2010. Water based cements–Part 2: resin-modified cements. International Organization for Standardization, GeneveGoogle Scholar
- 81.Yamazaki T, Schricker SR, Brantley WA, Culbertson BM, Johnston WJ (2005) Viscoelastic behavior and fracture toughness of six glass-ionomer cements. J Dent Res 96:266–272Google Scholar